You are on page 1of 166

Higher Education Marketing Concerns: Factors

Influencing Malaysian Students Intention to


Study at Higher Educational Institutions

Master of Business Administration

Lau Sear Haur


( CGA 070099 )

UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA

2009

Higher Education Marketing Concerns: Factors


Influencing Malaysian Students Intention to
Study at Higher Educational Institutions

Lau Sear Haur


Bachelor of Science (Hons.)
University of Malaya, Malaysia
2006

Master of Science (Distinction)


University of Malaya, Malaysia
2007

Submitted to Graduate School of Business


Faculty of Business and Accountancy
University of Malaya, in partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the Degree of
Master of Business Administration
2009

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my supervisors, Dr. Yusniza
Binti Kamarulzaman, who has provided me supervision, guidance and advice. This
research project would not have been success without her constant support and
concern. Her trust and patience is very much appreciated.

My special thanks go to Mr. Frankie Lee Chee Lih, Mr. Yong Yuan Wu, Mr.
Chin Kian Hoong, Ms. Ding Kay Lee, Ms. Ng Yin Lee, Mr. Ting Teck Kai, Ms.
Norashikin, and Ms. Lee Wei Ting, who have afforded me advice, help,
encouragement, and suggestion related to this study.

I would like to extend my thanks and appreciation to the supporting staff of


Graduate School of Business (UM-GSB) for the tremendous support given throughout
the entire duration of my research project.

Last but not least, my deepest gratitude also goes to my family numbers, who
were very understanding, and have given their best support and encouragement to me
throughout this study.

ABSTRACT
Higher education industry in Malaysia has been given a boost in the past couple of
decade. Due to the tremendous increased number of HEI; HE environments have
become intense competitive and HEIs have to compete for recruiting students from
the market. However, with the numbers of HEIs and courses around, it is difficult to
understand how students select HEIs for their choice. Therefore, it is a key issue for
HEI authorities to know what the underlying factors that influencing students
intention to study at a HEI. The purpose of this research is to assist HEIs marketing
effort in understanding of what determines a students intention to study at a HEI.
Moreover, the differences among students gender and academic background regard
with their perceived important attribute towards HEI are investigated.

A conceptual model integrating the different factors that influencing the study
intention of Malaysian students at a HEI was proposed in this study. The employed
instrument was developed based on adaption from previous studies. The instrument
was then subjected to validity and reliability test to ensure the appropriation. Result
proved that the instrument is appropriate, and applicable in Malaysia context.

A total of 480 pre-university level respondents from Klang Valley were


surveyed in this study. Samples were selected using stratified random sampling.
Findings indicated that the six proposed factors were significant influence on
students intention to study at a HEI. Meanwhile findings revealed there were
significant differences among respondents gender and their academic backgrounds
on those important attributes towards a HEI. These findings would provide marketers
a comprehensive overview of the different factors that play important roles in
influencing students intention to study at a HEI.
ii

Content
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT

ii

ABBREVIATIONS

vi

LIST OF FIRURE

vii

LIST OF TABLE

viii

CHAPTER 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13

Introduction
Education System in Malaysia
An Overview of the Malaysian Higher Education System
The Emergence of Marketing in Higher Education Institutions
Studies of Higher Education Marketing in Malaysia
Problem Statements
Research Objectives
Research Questions
Scope of the Study
Significance of the Study
Limitations of the Study
Organization of the Study
Conclusion of the Chapter

CHAPTER 2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5

2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9

INTRODUCTION
1
3
6
8
10
11
13
13
14
14
15
16
18

LITERATURES REVIEW

Introduction
The Nature of Education as a Service
Background of the Study
Colleges and University Selection Process
Review of Important Attributes
2.5.1 Cost of Education
2.5.2 Degree (Content and Structure)
2.5.3 Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources
2.5.4 Value of Education
2.5.5 Institutional Information
2.5.6 Significant People (Family, friends, peers and Teachers)
Review of Multiple Attribute Researches
Gender Effect on HEI Selection
Academic Background Effect on HEI Selection
Conclusion of the Chapter

19
19
20
20
22
23
24
24
26
27
28
35
41
43
44

iii

CHAPTER 3

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

Introduction
Conceptual Model
Definition of Variables
Hypotheses Development
3.4.1 Cost of Education
3.4.2 Degree (Content and Structure)
3.4.3 Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources
3.4.4 Value of Education
3.4.5 Institutional Information
3.4.6 Influences from People (Family, friends, peers and
Teachers)
3.4.7 Gender Differences on Important Attributes of HEI
3.4.8 Academic Background Differences on Important
Attributes of HEI
3.5 Conclusion of the Chapter

CHAPTER 4

Introduction
Research Design
Selection of Sample
Sampling
Instrument of Measurement
Data Collection
Research Approaches
4.7.1 Determination of Sample Normality
4.7.2 Descriptive Analyses
4.7.3 Validity Test
4.7.4 Reliability Test
4.7.5 Relationship Approach
4.7.6 Differences Approach
4.8 Assumptions of the Study
4.9 Conclusion of the Chapter

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4

55
56
58

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7

CHAPTER 5

45
45
48
51
51
51
52
53
53
54

59
59
59
60
61
62
63
63
64
64
64
65
65
66
67

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Introduction
Result of Sampling
Respondents Profile
Normality Test
5.4.1 Histogram
5.4.2 Stem-and-leaf Plots
5.4.3 Boxplot
5.4.4 Descriptive Statistic
5.4.5 Summary of Normality Tests
5.5 Descriptive Analysis

68
68
70
76
76
76
76
77
77
78

iv

5.6 Validity Test


5.6.1 Independent Variables
5.6.2 Dependent Variables
5.7 Reliability Test
5.8 Correlation Analysis
5.9 Multiple Regression Analysis
5.10 Independent Sample t-test
5.11 One-Way Analysis of Variance (One-Way ANOVA)
5.12 Conclusion of the Chapter
CHAPTER 6

82
83
90
92
95
97
103
104
108

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION

6.1 Introduction
6.2 Discussion of Results
6.2.1 Normality Tests
6.2.2 Descriptive Analysis
6.2.3 Validity and Reliability Test
6.2.4 Pearsons Correlation
6.2.5 Multiple Regression
6.2.6 Independent Sample t-test
6.2.7 One-Way ANOVA
6.3 Conclusion
6.4 Implications
6.5 Recommendations
6.6 Contribution of the Study
6.7 Suggestion for Future Research
6.8 Conclusion of the Chapter

109
109
109
109
115
116
116
118
119
122
124
126
127
128
129

130

REFERENCES
APPENDIX I

Questionnaire

144

APPENDIX II

Figures of Normality Tests

148

APPENDIX III

SPSS Analysis Data

159

ABBREVIATIONS
DV

Dependent Variable

etc

Et Cetera

Hypothesis

HE

Higher Education

HEI

Higher Educational Institution

i.e.

In Example

IV

Independent Variable

L.O.U.

Local Matriculation, Oversea


Foundation Programme

N.A.

Not Applicable

NS

Not Significant

PHEI

Private Higher Educational Institution

Pre-U

Pre-university

S.D.

Standard Deviation

Sig.

Significant

QL

Qualitative

QT

Quantitative

Percent

Pre-U

and

University

vi

LIST of FIGURES
Figure 1.1

Flowchart of the education system in Malaysia

Figure 1.2

The organization of the present study

Figure 3.1

A model of international students preference by Cubillo et al. (2006)

Figure 3.2

The proposed conceptual model in this study, adapted from Zeithaml


et al. (1996), Joseph and Joseph (1998, 2000), and Cubillo et al.
(2006).

Figure 3.3

The conceptual model and proposed hypotheses in the study

Figure 5.1

The gender group profile of the respondents

Figure 5.2

The age group profile of the respondents

Figure 5.3

The ethnic group profile of the respondents

Figure 5.4

The profile of respondents religion

Figure 5.5

The highest qualification status profile of the respondents

Figure 5.6

The family size profile of the respondents

Figure 5.7

The family gross monthly income profile of the respondents

Figure 5.8

Screen plot between eigenvalue and number of factors

Figure 5.9

Screen plot for items in dependent variable

Figure 5.10

Normal P-P Plot of regression standardized residual for dependent


variable

Figure 5.11

The scatter plot of residuals observed value and predicted value

vii

LIST of TABLES
Table 1.1

Malaysia national education system

Table 1.2

Higher educational institutions in Malaysia

Table 1.3

Student enrolment into HEIs in Malaysia 2002-2007

Table 2.1

Table 3.1

Summary of important attributes that affect students intention to study


at a HEI
The literature concerning multiple-attributes employed in previous
studies
The definition of each variable in the study

Table 4.1

Purposive sampling and targeted response

Table 4.2

Normality tests employed in this research

Table 4.3

The summary of analysis

Table 5.1

The Detail of Sampling Result

Table 5.2

The Demographical Profiles of the Respondents (N = 480)

Table 5.3

Statistical normality tests for scale data from the sample (N = 480)

Table 5.4

Summary of normality tests of the sample (N = 480)

Table 5.5

Summary of the mean of items according variable (N = 480)

Table 5.6
Table 5.7

Summary of the means of computed items according to variable (N =


480)
The ranking order of each important factor (N = 480)

Table 5.8

The overall score of each factor ranked by respondents (N = 480)

Table 5.9

KMO and Bartletts Test for independent variable

Table 5.10

Total variance explained for independent variables

Table 5.11

Output from parallel analysis

Table 5.12
Table 5.13

Comparison of eigenvalue from PCA and criterion values from


parallel analysis
Rotation component matrix result for independent variables

Table 5.14

KMO and Bartletts Test for dependent variable

Table 5.15

Total variance explained for items in dependent variable

Table 5.16

Component matrix result for dependent variable

Table 5.17

Cronbachs alpha value of variables

Table 5.18

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for variable: Cost of Education

Table 5.19

The correlations between the independent variables and the dependent


variable (N =480)
Multiple correlation of independent variables with dependent variable

Table 2.2

Table 5.20

viii

Table 5.21

Significances of Independent variables

Table 5.22

Regression coefficients and significance of independent variables

Table 5.23
Table 5.24

Independent sample t-test result for male and female respondent


towards proposed variables
One-way ANOVA, F values and effect size

Table 5.25

One-way ANOVA, comparison between groups

Table 5.26

Findings from comparison of groups

Table 6.1

Comparison of ranking order of importance for three distinct nations

Table 6.2

Summary of findings from differential analyses

Table 6.3

Overall result of hypotheses testing

Table 6.4

Overall implication of findings from the present study

ix

CHAPTER

Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Education System in Malaysia
1.3 An Overview of the Malaysian Higher Education System
1.4 The Emergence of Marketing in High Education Institutions
1.5 Studies of Higher Education Marketing in Malaysia
1.6 Problem Statements
1.7 Research Objectives
1.8 Research Questions
1.9 Scope of the Study
1.10 Significance of the Study
1.11 Limitations of the Study
1.12 Organization of the Study
1.13 Conclusion of the Chapter

Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5

Chapter 2
Literature Review

Chapter 3
Conceptual Model

Chapter 4
Research Methodology

Chapter 5
Data Analysis and
Findings

Chapter 6
Discussion and
Conclusion

1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13

Introduction
Education System in Malaysia
An Overview of the Malaysian
Higher Education System
The Emergence of Marketing in
High Education Institutions
Studies of Higher Education
Marketing in Malaysia
Problem Statements
Research Objectives
Research Questions
Scope of the Study
Significance of the Study
Limitations of the Study
Organization of the Study
Conclusion of the Chapter

CHAPTER 1
1.1

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Education is a growing industry and one where Malaysia is gaining acceptance as a


reputable study destination in the region. The education sector offers a variety of
higher educational programmes as well as professional and specialised skill courses
that are comparatively priced and of excellent quality. In fact, the Malaysian
government has policies to encourage both public higher education institutions (HEIs)
and private higher education institution (PHEIs) to become involved in the provision
of tertiary education and, indeed, has ambitions for establishing Malaysia as a
regional hub for education in South East Asia (David and Anne, 2007). Consequently,
a number of HEIs were established in Malaysia within the last two decades.

A market-sensitive educational system is evolving in Malaysia. Traditionally,


public universities were responsible for providing undergraduate and graduate studies.
While private colleges have been in existence in Malaysia for a couple of decades, the
government has been actively supporting them since 1995 to develop their own
unique and innovative higher education systems. In turn, the higher education (HE)
environment has become increasingly competitive and institutions have to compete
for the recruitment of students in the market. With the introduction of student fees, it
is potential applicants to higher education that have become increasingly consumerist.
As a result, the changes that have occurred in the education sector in Malaysia over
the past few years have aimed at introducing efficiency and competition into this
industry.

Furthermore, as competition for students intensifies, private universities and


private colleges of higher education have been very aggressive and creative in the use
of marketing approaches and techniques to recruit and attract students. HEI marketers
argue that knowing the reasons applicants choose universities and courses of study is
central to developing institutional positioning in an increasingly competitive HE
environment.

As a matter of fact, students entering institutions of higher education today are


very different than those of previous generations (Abrahamson, 2000). When making
decisions about attending college, and ultimately which college to attend, they
consider factors differently than previous generations. Therefore, from time to time,
HEI marketers need to study the underlying factors that affect students HEI choice.
Moreover, the study of choice and decision making in HE is an area of growing
research interest, primarily because HE has been transformed from a domesticated,
centrally funded non marketised entity to a highly marketised and competitive
environment (Soutar and Turner, 2002).

In summary, this study aims to identify the important factors that significantly
influence students intention to study at a HEI. Moreover, the differences among
students gender and academic background with regard to their perception of
important attributes towards HEIs are investigated. The findings of this study will be
beneficial in terms of decision making and contribute to the roles that assist the HEI
marketers to plan and improve their marketing strategy for the recruitment of
students.

1.2

Education System in Malaysia

In Malaysia education is the responsibility of the federal government. The national


education system encompasses education from pre-school to university. Pre-tertiary
education (i.e. from pre-school to secondary education) is under the jurisdiction of the
Ministry of Education (MOE) while tertiary education is the responsibility of the
Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE).

Generally, the Malaysian education system provides eleven years of basic


education to every child in the country. Both public and privately funded educational
institutions at all levels of education exist in the national education system. The
educational structure is 6-3-2, that is, six years of primary education, three years of
lower secondary education, and two years of upper secondary education. Primary
education and secondary education are free in public school due to full subsidization
by the Malaysian government. Over 95% of primary and secondary education for
Malaysian children is provided by public schools. The admission age to the first year
of primary education is seven. Primary schooling is mandatory for all children
between the ages of seven and twelve. Students sit for common public examinations
at the end of primary (UPSR), lower secondary (PMR) and upper secondary levels
(SPM). In short, Malaysia has been striving towards universal primary and secondary
education since its independence (Molly, 1999).

While in the past, the education system only provided for nine years of basic
education, a reform in the early 1990s extended the basic education from nine years to
eleven years. Instead of sitting for a selective public examination at the end of the
lower secondary level (i.e., Form 3) with only about 50% of the Form 3 students

proceeding to Form 4, today all Form 3 students are promoted to Form 4. This has
changed an elitist school system into a system that provides for mass education
(Molly, 2004). The successful democratisation of secondary education has resulted in
an increasing demand for post-secondary education, which, in turn, has brought about
a rapid expansion of higher education as reflected in the increased number of
universities and the proliferation of private colleges.

Furthermore, upon completion of secondary education, students interested in


continuing their study may opt to pursue one to two years of post-secondary
education, which is the university entrance preparatory course (also called preuniversity programme). Examples of pre-university programmes are STPM, GCE Alevel, Local Matriculation, Canadian Pre-University, South Australia Matriculation,
etc. After the completion of pre-university level education, students are eligible to
further their study at the tertiary education level.

At the tertiary education level, institutions of higher learning offer courses


leading to the award of Certificate, Diploma, Degree and postgraduate qualifications.
Certificate, Diploma, Degree, Higher Degree programmes (in academic and
professional fields) are adequately provided for by both the public and private
education sectors. Therefore, at this level, students have several choices for furthering
their studies. As far as higher education marketing is concerned, there is a market for
HEIs and the reasons behind students preferences of HEIs have been studied in
previous researches.

Generally, the Malaysian national education system is summarized in Table


1.1 and Figure 1.1.

Table 1.1: Malaysia national education system


Education Level
Pre-school
Primary
Lower secondary
Upper secondary
Post-secondary
Tertiary
Post-graduate (Master or PhD)

Starting Age
Five
Seven
Thirteen
Sixteen
Eighteen
Twenty
-

Duration
Two years
Six years
Three years
Two years
One to two years
Three to five years
One to five years

Pre-school education

Primary Education
Compulsory
Education

Pre-Secondary (One Year)

Secondary Education

STPM

(Six Years)

GCE A-Level

Matriculation

(Five Years)

University
Foundation
Year

Overseas Pre-U
(CPU, SAM)

Tertiary Education
Figure 1.1: Flowchart of the education system in Malaysia

1.3

An Overview of the Malaysian Higher Education System

In the early 1990s, there were approximately 200 private colleges, seven public
universities and no private universities in Malaysia. With the nations focus on the
development of HEIs, by the end of 2001 there were eleven public universities, five
conventional private universities, and branch campuses of three foreign universities.
By 2005, Malaysia had approximately 72 public and 559 private institutions.
Currently, the number of tertiary education institutions has further increased. There
are now 79 public tertiary education institutions, which comprises 20 universities, 22
polytechnics, and 37 community colleges. Furthermore, at the time of this study there
were approximately 600 PHEIs in Malaysia. The statistics for HEIs is shown in Table
1.2.

Table 1.2: Higher educational institutions in Malaysia

Institution

Year
2005

2000
2007
Public
University
11
18
20
Polytechnic
11
20
22
Community College
0
34
37
Sub-total
22
72
79
Private
University
5
22
32
Branch Campus
3
5
5
College
482
532
563*
Sub-total
512
559
600
Total
534
631
679
*Approximation (Source: www.mohe.gov.my, accessed 2 Feb 2009)

As the statistics in Table 1.1 show the number of HEIs in Malaysia has
dramatically increased within the last decade, similarly the enrolment of students into
HEIs in Malaysia has also increased. In 2002, there were 253,153 students enrolled
into HEIs. The number increased to 336,845 by 2007 with a compounded annual

growth rate (CAGR) of 6.9%. The statistics for student enrolment are presented in
Table 1.3.

Table 1.3: Student enrolment into HEIs in Malaysia 2002-2007


Institution

Year
2002
87,390
165,763
253,153

Public
Private
Total

2003
98,781
163,480
262,261

2004
113,827
169,834
283,661

2005
117,797
113,105
230,902

2006
130,771
144,775
275,546

2007
169,057
167,788
336,845

CAGR
(%)
14.4
2.6
6.9

Despite the increasing trend of student enrolment into HEIs, a noticeable


pressure is being faced by the HEIs. It has become more difficult to recruit an
adequate number of students due to the increased competition, especially for PHEIs.
The competition has become intensified as many private colleges have forged various
kinds of institutional linkages with foreign universities to offer different types of
degree programmes and professional qualifications. Recently, this practice was
extended to include institutional linkages between private colleges and local public
universities.

Programmes that are linked with foreign universities are sometimes known as
transnational education programmes and these include twinning programmes, credit
transfer programmes, external degree programmes and distance learning programmes.
The twinning programmes are split degree programmes where the students study part
of the degree programme in a local institution before proceeding to the foreign
university to complete the programme. Typical twinning arrangements are either
2+1 (2 years in a local college and 1 year in an overseas twinning university) or
2+2. However, a number of private colleges began to offer 3+0 programmes
when the economic crisis hit Malaysia in 1997 as fewer students could afford to

continue their studies overseas due to the devaluation of the Malaysian Ringgit.
Currently, there are more than 12 private colleges offering 3+0 programmes and
five branch campuses of foreign universities, which means that Malaysians can obtain
a foreign degree without having to go abroad (Molly, 2004).

Furthermore, as tuition fees are the main source of revenue for most PHEIs,
their programmes have to be tailored to meet the market demand. As a result, the
PHEIs tend to offer programmes in disciplines that do not require a large capital
outlay such as accountancy, business studies, and computer studies. In order words,
the majority of PHEIs in Malaysia offer similar programmes. Consequently, it further
stimulates the competition among PHEIs as well as public HEIs.

1.4

The Emergence of Marketing in Higher Education Institutions

Most HEIs now recognise that they need to market themselves in a climate of
competition, which for universities is frequently a global one, and substantial
literature on the transfer of the practices and concepts of marketing from other sectors
to HE has been developed (Gibbs, 2002). For example, Nguyen and LeBlanc (2001)
focused on the image and reputation of the institution and referred to the crucial role
these factors played in the development of market positioning they drew on the well
established concepts and theories in business sector marketing for their study. On the
other hand, Binsardi and Ekwulugo (2003), who claimed that a centrally important
principle of marketing is that all marketing activities should be geared towards the
customer, relied on the literature used in business sector marketing, and applied it in
the context of higher education.

Kotler and Fox (1985) provided a definition of education marketing as early as


1985, stating that marketing in the context of education was: the analysis, planning,
implementation and control of carefully formulated programmes designed to bring
about voluntary exchanges of values with a target market to achieve organisational
objectives.

Some of the earlier definitions concentrated on product marketing, for


example, Kotler and Foxs (1985) definition stated that students were the product
and employers were the customers, Levitt (1980) also viewed a universitys offerings
as products (Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003). Later in the 1990s higher education
marketing was defined within the services marketing definition, for example,
Mazzarol (1998) highlighted the key characteristics that provide services marketing
based on the nature of the services using a theory developed by well-established
researchers in business management (Zeithaml et al., 1985; Parasuraman et al., 2004).
The recognition that HE is a service industry further shows that some authors in the
field were anxious to ensure that HE is recognised as a business: a service sector
business.

In contrast, Ogbuehi and Rogers (1990) cited that American universities have
been forced to pay more attention to the utilization of marketing techniques in their
recruitment processes due to the sharp decrease in the number of US High School
graduates. This rationale is increasingly apparent within the Asian region. In the past,
due to the relatively low participation rates in university education and the largely
public provision of such education, Asian Universities tended to have a captive
audience, requiring very little in the way of marketing. However, in recent years,
participation rates have exploded and many private institutions have emerged. This

means that Asian tertiary institutions need to give close attention to the utilization of
marketing techniques and improving student recruitment.

1.5

Studies of Higher Education Marketing in Malaysia

Studies relating to the marketing of HEIs in Malaysia are relatively few. Nonetheless,
a number of studies have been conducted by many researchers on the institutional
characteristics influencing the choice of institutions in various host countries,
including regions close to Malaysia. Most studies identified the factors that influence
the students choice of institutions, however, studies such as Lin (1997), Joseph and
Joseph (1998), Joseph and Joseph (2000), AEI-International Education Network
(2003), Sidin et al. (2003) and Gray et al. (2003) analyze further the underlying
factors of the many variables.

From the existing literature at least six variables can be identified, (1) financial
attractiveness, (2) programme and course suitability and availability, (3) ease and
flexibility of enrolment procedure, (4) future ease of employment after graduating, (5)
attractiveness of institutions, and (6) quality reputation, which have been adopted as
the basis of the hypotheses in this research. In addition, the outcome of the focus
group of an extended study done by Krishnan and Nurtjihjia (2007) revealed that 32
variables should be used instead of 26 variables. However, the research field of higher
education marketing in Malaysia is still at a relatively pioneer stage with much
research still to be carried out both from an exploratory and strategic perspective.

10

1.6

Problem Statements

In Malaysia today there is greater opportunity for secondary school students to attend
colleges and universities. Moreover, students are able to select their preference from a
large pool of universities and colleges regardless of whether they are public or private,
or local or overseas HEIs. Consequently, the competition for HEIs to recruit more
students and retain them has become fiercer than ever before (Sohail et al., 2003).
Facing a growing competitive environment, HEIs have dramatically increased the
competition for recruiting and retaining students by providing a high quality service
as the solution to compete in this turbulent market. Due to the increasing competitive
forces for marketing education in Malaysia, marketers need to be more aware of the
underlying factors considered by students when selecting a HEI (Hassan and Sheriff,
2006) if they want to survive in this competitive environment (Vaira, 2004). Thus, it
is very important for marketers to know the factors that influence the study intention
of prospective students and to understand the nature of the relationship among them.
These factors are significant from the perspective of the HEIs marketing strategy
planning for student recruitment. As a result, an extensive investigation of the
important attributes that influence Malaysian students intention to study at a HEI is
proposed in this study.

Furthermore, although previous researchers identified many attributes that


influenced students choice of institutions, the attributes that distinguish competing
services from one another have not been clearly described. In other words, the
determinant attributes that cause students to choose to attend a particular HEI are
undetermined. Determinant attributes are referred to some way may down the list of
service characteristics that are important to purchasers/students, but they are the
11

distinguishing attributes that allow customers/students to differentiate between the


competing alternatives (Lovelock, 2007). It is typical for HEI marketers to identify
the determinant attributes that motivate students to attend a HEI as these determinant
attributes are the essence for HEI marketers to gain a competitive advantage in their
crafting strategies for student recruitment.

In the empirical search process in this study, no studies were found that
address the difference by students gender with regard to the choice of HEI in
Malaysia. Previous studies have demonstrated that the gender effect plays an
important role in HEI student recruitment (Shank and Beasley, 1998; Mansfield and
Warwick, 2005). Researchers argue that male and female students differ in the
selection criteria they consider important when choosing a HEI. Thus, it will be
interesting to see whether such gender differences also arise within the Malaysian HEI
context.

Furthermore, few studies were found that investigate the difference by


students academic background (especially at pre-university level) towards their
perceived important attributes of a HEI. Elizabeth Ng (2003) observed that students
who studied in different programmes at pre-university level had different preferences
concerning HEIs when studying abroad. The students decision in the selection of a
pre-university programme is often associated with a predisposition to attend a HEI in
the near future. Hence, it will be topical to find out whether such academic
background differences arise in the Malaysian HEI context.

12

1.7

Research Objectives

In line with the problem statements, this study has two specific objectives

1. To determine and understand the factors influencing students intention to


further their study at a HEI
2. To identify the significant differences between students gender and academic
backgrounds concerning factors they perceive as important when selecting a
HEI to attend.

1.8

Research Questions

The following research questions were developed in order to guide the present study:

Q1:

What are the influencing factors and the contributions they make to a students
intention to study at a HEI ?

The purpose of this research question is to identify and determine the


important factors (i.e. cost of education, degree (content and structure),
physical aspect and facilities, value of education, institutional information, and
people (family, friends, peers and teachers)) that affect a students intention to
study at a HEI.

Q2:

How students of different genders and from different academic backgrounds


differ in the selection criteria they consider important when choosing a HEI ?

The purpose of this research question is to identify the differences between


students gender and respective academic backgrounds on proposed factors
that affect their intention to study at a particular HEI.

13

1.9

Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is limited to those students who live in the Klang Valley. This
is because most of the PHEIs that conduct pre-university courses are concentrated
around major urban areas in the Klang Valley. Moreover, the number of public
schools that offer Form Six (STPM) in these areas is higher than other states. As a
result, a sample from this segment may be considered to adequately represent the
actual population.

Students who are currently attending pre-university level programmes, such as


Form Six (STPM), GCE A-Level, local matriculation, overseas Pre-U courses, and
other foundation courses are defined as the target sample in this study. The targeted
sample is defined as such due to this group of people having the highest possibility of
furthering their studies in HEIs in the near future. To a certain extent they are of
interest to HEI marketers in order to determine the factors that can alter a students
choice of HEI.

1.10

Significance of the Study

The findings of the research would expound on the theoretical contributions, thus,
enriching the existing literature. This research will explain further those factors that
influence a students intention to study at a HEI.

The findings of this research will be beneficial to both students (customers),


and institutions (service providers) for better future planning and decision making.
Moreover, the results of this research will provide HEI marketers with a better view
of the important factors that students consider in their selection of a HEI. Hence, HEI
marketers may gain a better understanding of the actual needs and perceptions of
14

students in their further study decision making process. In consequence, HEIs may
improve their marketing strategy in student recruitment.

1.11

Limitations of the Study

The sampling process of the present study was carried out in the Klang Valley. Even
though the majority of educational institutions that offer pre-university programmes
are concentrated in this urbanized area, there are some others located in Suburban
areas of Malaysia. For instance, public high schools that offer Form Six programmes.
Thus, samples from the Klang Valley may not be adequate in generating an
exhaustive picture that reflects the whole student population in Malaysia.
Furthermore, students from sub-urban areas may have distinct preferences concerning
HEIs compared to students who live in urban areas.

Also, the accessibility of respondents to the questions in the questionnaire


remains unknown. This study applied a quantitative approach; the instrument was
developed by adapting a few sets of established questionnaires from previous studies.
To a certain extent, evaluations made by respondents may not be accurate due to gaps
or misunderstandings between the respondents and the concepts measured by the
question. Moreover, the honesty of respondents in answering the questions during the
survey is a constraint of this study.

15

1.12

Organization of the Study

This thesis consists of six chapters and the organization of the study is as follows:
Chapter 1: This chapter presents the introduction, related information on the interests
of study, problem statements, research objectives, research questions,
research scope, and significance and limitations of study.
Chapter 2: This chapter addresses the nature of education as a service, the background
of the study, college and university selection process, comprehensive
review of important attributes and multiple attribute researches, and gender
and academic background effects on HEI selection.
Chapter 3: This chapter focuses on the development of the conceptual model,
definition of proposed variables, and hypotheses development.
Chapter 4: this chapter covers the selection of the sample, sampling technique,
instrument design, data collection process, extensive research approach
and research methodology employed in this study, and assumptions of the
study.
Chapter 5: This chapter presents the sampling results and respondents profile, data
analysis and findings from various analyses such as normality tests,
validity and reliability tests, Pearsons correlation, multiple linear
regression, independent sample t-test, and One-way ANOVA.
Chapter 6: This chapter includes an in depth discussion of the results, conclusion,
implications, recommendations, contribution of the study, and suggestions
for future research.
The organization of this study is graphically presented in Figure 1.2.

16

Chapter 1
Introduction

Chapter 2
Literature Review

Chapter 3
Conceptual Model

Chapter 4
Research Methodology

Chapter 5
Data Analysis and
Findings

Chapter 6
Discussion and
Conclusion
Figure 1.2: The organization of the present study

17

1.13

Conclusion of the Chapter

This chapter described the general view of the present study. Information relating to
the interest of the study was discussed. The problem statement, research objectives,
and research questions were clearly defined. Further, the scope and significance of the
study were covered. Limitations of the study were stated, and the chapter ended with
the organization of the study. The literature regarding this study is reviewed in
Chapter 2.

18

CHAPTER

Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Nature of Education as a Service
2.3 Background of the Study
2.4 Colleges and University Selection Process
2.5 Review of Important Attributes
2.5.1 Cost of Education
2.5.2 Degree (Content and Structure)
2.5.3 Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources
2.5.4 Value of Education
2.5.5 Institutional Information
2.5.6 Significant People (Family, friends, peers and Teachers)
2.6 Review of Multiple Attribute Researches
2.7 Gender Effect on HEI Selection
2.8 Academic Background Effect on HEI Selection
2.9 Conclusion of the Chapter

Chapter 1
Introduction

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

Chapter 2
Literature Review

2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9

Chapter 3
Conceptual Model

Chapter 4
Research Methodology

Chapter 5
Data Analysis and
Findings

Chapter 6
Discussion and
Conclusion

Introduction
The Nature of Education as a Service
Background of the Study
Colleges and University Selection
Process
Review of Important Attributes
Review of Multiple Attribute
Researches
Gender Effect on HEI Selection
Academic Background Effect on HEI
Selection
Conclusion of the Chapter

CHAPTER 2
2.1

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This chapter presents an extensive review of the literature and research related to
factors that influence a students intention to study at a HEI. This chapter first
discusses the nature of education as a service industry. The second part focuses on the
background of the study, followed by stages in the college or university selection
process. Moreover, this chapter describes literature concerning the important
attributes, multiple-attribute researches, gender, and academic background effects on
HEI selection. This chapter ends with a discussion on marketing in higher education.

2.2

The Nature of Education as a Service

Services present special characteristics that require a particular marketing strategy


application (Stanton, 1974; Andreson et al., 1993; Kotler et al., 1995). By their
nature, services cannot be touched, tasted, or possessed (Dawidow et al., 1989). In
general, services are intangible, heterogeneous, perishable, and require simultaneous
production and consumption (Zeithaml et al., 1985; Ahmed et al., 2002).

Students usually associate intangibility with a high level of risk. Thus,


intangibility hinders the communication of services to the customer (Rathmell, 1966)
and the setting of prices for international education (Mazzarol, 1998). Consequently,
the decision process of consumers is influenced by indirect mechanisms of service
evaluation. Students evaluate these aspects based on the image of the brand, the
institution, and the country of destination.

19

Higher education is a pure service and is characterized by a greater amount of


interpersonal contact, complexity, divergence, and customization compared to other
service businesses (Patterson et al., 1998). Most of the quality attributes in higher
education cannot be perceived, felt, or tested in advance. This nature brings
difficulties to the evaluation of a programme, especially for an international student
(Harvey and Busher, 1996; Patterson et al., 1998; Srikatanyoo and Gnoth, 2002).

2.3

Background of the Study

Researchers have focused on student choice of college or HEI for more than 40 years.
In the 1960s and 1970s, this research related to sociology, which explored the process
of social mobility and occupational attainment (Sewell & Shah, 1968; Alexander &
Eckland, 1975). Other researchers, such as Lewis and Morrison (1975), examined
college choice as complex decision-making. In the 1980s and 1990s, most collegechoice research focused on three basic studies: factors influencing college choice,
stage models, and student (as consumer) behaviour. In this case, the proposed
research in this study is one of the analyses towards factors influencing students
intention to study at a HEI. Nevertheless, the stage model is discussed in the next
section for a better understanding that will complement the implications of this study.

2.4

College and University Selection Process

Choosing a college or university is a critical stage for all high school graduates who
plan to attain higher education in the future. However, students may make decisions
that will affect persistence, which is a critical stage in their education.

The literature on student college choice suggests a three-stage process for


decisions to select a HEI (Jackson 1982; Litten 1982; Chapman 1984; Hossler and

20

Gallagher 1987; Hossler et al., 1989). Hossler and Gallagher (1987) proposed a three
phase model of college choice. At each phase of the model, individual and
organizational factors interact to produce outcomes that influence the student college
choice process as follows:

The first stage is the predisposition phase in which students determine whether
they would like to continue their education beyond the secondary level or not. This
phase is affected by student ability, achievement, socioeconomic status, parents, peer,
educational activities and school characteristics (Tillery, 1973; Litten, 1982; Stage
and Hossler, 1989; Nora and Cabrera, 1992; Somers et al., 1999).

The second stage is the search phase during which they gather information
about institutions of higher education and formulate a choice set that is the group of
institutions to which they will actually apply. The search phase is affected by the
students preliminary HEI values, their search activities and college or university
search activities for students (Chapman, 1981; Hossler and Gallagher, 1987).

The third stage is that of choice, that is, deciding which college or university
to actually attend. Educational and occupational aspirations, costs and financial aid,
and college or university courtship activities influence the choice phase (Hossler and
Gallagher, 1987; John, 1990; Nora and Cabrera, 1992).

According to the literature, there are many attributes affecting a students


choice decision making, especially at the second and the third stage. It is known that
physical characteristics, personal influences, costs and financial aids and academic
and social variables influence the students choice and persistence towards a HEI
(Hossler, et al. 1989: Bean, 1990; Paulsen, 1990; Cabrera et al., 1992).
21

The purpose of this study is to investigate students perceived important


attributes during the university choice process, and whether there are significant
differences between students gender and course of study during their pre-university
level (academic background). This information is vital to HEI marketers as
understanding the factors affecting students choice and persistence will enable HEI
marketers to influence students decisions towards choosing their college or
university. Hence, it provides significant insights that allow HEI marketers to gain a
competitive advantage over their competitors.

2.5

Review of Important Attributes

Higher education is not a frequent purchase and demands a high level of involvement
from students (Brookes, 2003). Indeed, the decision to study at a HEI involves cost
(time and monetary) and people surrounding the student. Moreover, as discussed in
Section 2.2, education is one kind of service that cannot be easily touched and tasted.
The only way to evaluate the appropriateness of the choice to study at a HEI is to go
through the process by experience. In turn, the perceived risk of making a decision of
HEI choice is relatively high.

Therefore, in order to determine their preferences, prospective students


consider what is important for them, and then generate a conscious/unconscious tradeoff among the attributes (Soutar and Turner, 2002). In fact, a number of researches
were carried out to study the important attributes that influence students study
intention. In this study, attention was given to six important attributes.

22

2.5.1

Cost of Education

Tillery and Kildergaard (1973) stated that cost is more influential concerning whether
a student attends college or not than it is on which college he or she attends. Cabrera
and La Nasa (2000) pointed to research that consistently showed a significant
negative relationship between tuition increases and enrolment. Besides, in the
research done by Leslie and Brinkman (1988), findings suggest that all students were
sensitive to tuition cost.

According to research done by Hossler et al. (1989) 70% of students and 87%
of parents indicated that they were either well informed or informed about
financial aid programmes and their eligibility for financial aid. Some theorists cited
that receiving aid is more important than the amount of aid received, because that aid
becomes the substantive way the institutions communicate that we want you to be
part of our community (Jackson, 1982; Abrahamson & Hossler, 1990; Freeman,
1997).

In contrast, Hossler et al. (1998) concluded that parents willingness to


contribute, regardless of family income, has some effect on tuition and financial aid
sensitivity. Their research also concluded that for Asian students, financial aid offers a
vehicle in attracting them to specific institutions.

Foskett et al. (2006) found that flexibility of fee payment, availability of


financial aid, and reasonable accommodation costs in that order exert a significant
influence on students choice of HEI.

23

2.5.2

Degree (Content and Structure)

Hooley and Lynch (1981) observed that the suitability of the programme is the most
important factor, as students will accept any level of the other factors. Studies that
focused on the variables that influence students selection of tertiary institution
(Houston, 1979; Krone et al., 1983; Webb, 1993) point towards a wide range of
choice criteria. The criteria that seem to be most important are programme related
issues such as flexibility and length of the programme, and programme entry
requirements. Houston (1979) found length of the programme was at the bottom of
the scale, while in Webbs (1993) study it is one of the most important elements.

Krampf and Heinlein (1981) found that prospective students compare


programmes offered with those promoted by competing institutions in order to check
their suitability. The elements that influence the programme evaluation are: the
selection of courses (Qureshi, 1995), their quality (Turner, 1998), availability of
courses, and entry requirements (Bourke, 2000).

The availability of majors is one of the primary considerations shaping actual


matriculation (Choy and Ottinger 1998; Hossler et al., 1999). Also, Brennan (2001)
stated that admission criteria as a proxy for quality is potentially more important than
the programme offering. Programme evaluation is conceptualised as the consumers
attitude towards targeted programmes (Peng et al., 2000).

2.5.3

Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources

Chapman (1984) cited that fixed college characteristics are one of the external
influences that influence a students intention to study at a particular HEI. The fixed

24

characteristics comprising college size, campus environment and good quality of


faculty members are for the most part under the control of the institution.

Researchers such as Litten (1980), Tierney (1983), and Seneca and Taussig
(1987) found that academically-talented students look for different attributes
compared to average students. The former evaluate an institution based on the quality
of their programmes while the latter, in addition to good programmes, are also
interested in factors like physical appearance and social life. This illustrates the scope
for segmenting the market and approaching the recruitment of the distinct segments
with tailor-made strategies.

Jackson (1982) stated that most students only seriously consider colleges
located relatively near their homes that present no extraordinary financial or academic
obstacles.

Wajeed and Micceri (1997) identified that the location of the HEI has a
significant influence on the college choice of high school students. Their research at
the University of South Florida (USF) suggested that geographic location or
proximity is a primary motivating factor for students choosing to attend USF. They
concluded that First Time in College (FTIC) and students from community colleges
show enrolment preferences for institutions in their home counties or regions.

Past studies pointed out that HEI selection is determined by several factors
including the quality and expertise of its teaching faculty, attractiveness and campus
atmosphere (Krampf and Heinlein, 1981; Lin, 1997; Mazzarol, 1998; Soutar and
Turner, 2002).
25

The physical environment of the service production constitutes an important


element in the decision-making process. Price et al. (2003) found that when provided
with a high standard, facilities are considered as a relevant factor in influencing the
students selection of the institution in which they will pursue their studies.

The output of Price et al. (2003) analyses the degree to which facilities and
location factors influence the decision of a group of customers. The most important
factor related to facilities is social life at the university and its surroundings. Results
also revealed that factors such as safety, security, cleanliness, and sports facilities are
considered less significant.

Other physical factors influencing the students HEI choice through auxiliary
services are: library facilities (Qureshi, 1995), availability of computers, quality of
library facilities, availability of quiet areas such as study rooms, and the availability of
areas for self-study (Price et al., 2003).

2.5.4

Value of Education

The academic reputation and image of the institution are the sum of opinions, ideas,
and impressions that prospective students have of the institution (Kotler and Fox,
1995). Their opinion about the reputation and image of the institution are formed from
word of mouth, past experience, and marketing activities of the institution (Ivy, 2001).
Thus, very often the perception of the institutions excellence goes beyond its actual
quality (Kotler and Fox, 1995).

26

Increasingly, students are becoming extremely critical and analytical when


choosing their educational institutions (Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003). Due to the
growing competence in international education, HEIs need to maintain and develop a
distinctive image in order to reach a competitive advantage (Paramewaran and
Glowacka, 1995). In this way, the quality of reputation and branding are two
important sources for this purpose (Hall, 1993; Qureshi, 1995; Mazzarol, 1998;
Bourke, 2000).

A positive image can strongly influence the decision to attend an educational


institution (Krampf and Heinlein, 1981; Qureshi, 1995; Mazzarol, 1998; Bourke,
2000; Gutman and Miaoulis, 2003). The institution selection is determined by several
factors such as the academic reputation and prestige of the institution (Krampf and
Heinlein, 1981; Lin, 1997; Mazzarol, 1998; Soutar and Turner, 2002). Prospective
students also consider the positioning of the institution within the ranking of academic
organizations.

2.5.5

Institutional Information

Cleopatra (2004) cited that in order to increase participation and to assist students in
their choice of institution, information is needed that will change the attitude of the
potential students and facilitate their decision-making. Moreover, due to the highly
competitive HEI market, facing concerns relating to widening access, and students
facing new choices and many more alternatives, produce and seek increased
information to enable them to reach an informed and better decision. Applicants
information seeking continues even after students initial selection of institutions and
the completion of their post-secondary form or pre-university level (Moogan et al.,
1999).
27

Furthermore, Cleopatra (2004) identified that information regarding career


prospects and area of study for a course were significantly important to students in the
study. Career prospects information such as the average earnings of the graduates and
the percentage of graduates who are employed within a year of their graduation; area
of study referred to the content of a specific course and the course as a learning
experience.

Joseph and Joseph (1998, 2000) reported that the course and career
information is, by far, the most important category of information during the selection
of a specific higher education institution. Studies found that potential students place a
strong emphasis on the need to collect, and no doubt compare, academic information
such as area of study, and career opportunities after graduation (Cleopatra, 2004;
Felix, 2006).

2.5.6

Significant People (Family, friends, peers and Teachers)

Studies of the college and university choice process have shown that a persons
decision to attend college is influenced by individuals with personal or social ties to
the student. Sheppard et al. (1992) showed that parents, other family members, and, to
a lesser extent, peers had the largest influence on students college aspirations.
Chapmans model includes the influence of high school personnel as an additional
significant person in a students college choice process.

Research done by Hossler et al. (1999) on significant persons to student


college choice indicated that by the junior year, the search activities of the students
rose dramatically from their sophomore year. The study showed that 43% of

28

respondents reported that they spoke with friends, teachers, counsellors, or parents
about college. Another 61% obtained information from counsellors and local libraries.
In addition, 55% sent off for college information and 55 % visited one or more
campuses. Consequently, by the end of the junior year, teachers and counsellors
played an important role in assisting students learn about specific institutions.

In sum, when students must make the decision concerning which college to
attend, they tend to consult family, friends, peers, teachers, counsellors, and college
recruiters. All these individuals will have a certain degree of influence on the
students decision (Stefanie, 2006).

Family and Parental Influence

The influence of the family on college attainment for students and the way the
family imparts values differs from what the research indicates about the influence of
the family towards college attainment for all students (Freeman, 1997; Wilson &
Allen, 1987).

Descriptive and univariate analyses by Hossler et al. (1999) revealed that


students in the ninth grade who talked the most with their parents (rather than with
peer, teachers, or counsellors) about their postsecondary plans were more likely to be
planning to attend college and were also more likely to be certain of their plans. Many
studies have shown that parental encouragement is highly influential on a students
college choice. The research of Carpenter and Fleishman (1987) revealed that as the
level of parental encouragement increased, student achievement also increased.

29

According to Cabera and La Nasa (2000), parental encouragement has two


dimensions; motivational and proactive. In the motivational stage, parents maintain
high educational expectations for their children. During the proactive stage, parents
become involved in school matters, discuss college plans with their children and save
for college (Stage & Hossler, 1989; Flint, 1992, 1993; Hossler & Vesper, 1993;
Miller, 1997; Hossler et al, 1999; Perna, 2000).

In other words, to know students and their parents expectations could be one
of the effective ways that colleges have to take to face the highly competitive new
environment (Thomas et al., 1996; Walther, 2000; St. John et al., 2005; Schweitzer,
2006).

Friends Influence

According to Hayden (2000), opinions of friends and former students weigh


heavily on the minds of college applicants when deciding between colleges. These
studies and others expound upon the knowledge that the more a high school student
interacts with other students with college plans, the more likely they are to consider
going to college.

Maringe

(2006),

Hemsley-Brown

and

Oplatka

(2006)

found

that

approximately 27% of the students turned to their friends and neighbours for their
HEI choice. This is because formal sources of interpersonal information such as
agents, experts, university staff and counsellors are less easily accessed than informal
sources such as friends, family, neighbours and relatives. However, formal sources

30

may be more believable if the product is perceived to be highly technical and high
involvement (Coccari et al. 1995).

Peers Influence

Hossler and Stage (1987) showed a correlation between non-college bound


students and their non college bound peers. These researchers stated that students with
peers with no college plans influence the predisposition phase of students; college
choice. Their research also found that students who were not planning to attend a HEI
were more likely to consult their peers. While parental encouragement is still
considered the greatest influence on college attainment, the effect of students peers
does add an additional dynamic to the overall college choice process for high school
students.

Several researchers (Coleman, 1966; Tillery, 1973; Russell, 1980; Falsey &
Haynes, 1984) examined the relationships between student interaction with other
college bound students and their college participation.

Teachers and Counsellors Influence

Leslie et al. (1977) reported research data that shows that students are most
likely to rely on information about college from their high school counsellor. This
study concluded that upper income students cite parents, students, catalogues, college
representatives, and private guidance counsellors as sources for information on their
college search.
31

Researchers have studied the influence of high school personnel on the college
choice of minority students (Lewis & Morrison, 1975; Hossler & Stage, 1997).
Research indicates that minority students are more likely to consult with counsellors
about their college choice.

According to the literature discussed in this section, a variety of attributes


have been identified as influencing factors in the decision-making process of students
intention to study at a HEI. Therefore, a multi-attribute model is proposed to provide
tertiary institutions with a set of important attributes that students use in their decision
making for their further study. These important attributes are summarized in Table
2.1.

32

Table 2.1: Summary of important attributes that affect students intention to study at a
HEI

Reference
Baird (1967)

Important Attributes
9 Good faculty
9 High academic standards
9 Special programmes

2.

Bowers and Pugh (1972)

9 Good faculty
9 High standards

3.

Chapman (1979)

9 Quality of the institution


9 Cost of education

4.

Murphy (1981)

9 Academic reputation
9 Cost of education

5.

Maguire and Lay (1981)

9
9
9
9
9
9
9

Financial aid
Peer influence
Special programmes
Size of the institution
Location
Athletic facilities
Social activities

6.

Krampf and Heinlein (1981)

9
9
9
9
9
9
9

Attractiveness of the campus


Recommendation from family
Closeness to home
Good programme in their major
Friendliness of the campus atmosphere
Informative campus visits
Informative university catalogue

7.

Hooley and Lynch (1981)

9
9
9
9
9
9

Course suitability
Academic reputation
University location
Distance from home
Advice from parents and teachers
Type of university (morden/old)

8.

Chapman (1981)

9 Significant person
9 Fixed college characteristics
9 College efforts to communicate with
students

9.

Discenza et al. (1985), Hossler


(1985)

9 Academic reputation
9 Peer influence, financial assistance, and
location

10.

Litten (1980), Seneca


and Taussig (1987) and Tierney
(1983)

9 Good programmes
9 Social life

33

11.

Reference
Houston (1979), Krone et
al. (1983), Webb (1993)

Important Attributes
9 Flexibility and length of the programme
9 Reputation and prestige
9 Cost of education

12.

Qureshi (1995)

9
9
9
9
9

13.

Mazzrol et al. (1996)

9 Recognition of their qualification by future


employers
9 Quality reputation
9 Willingness to recognize previous qualification
9 Staffs quality, reputation and expertise

14.

Lin (1997)

9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9

Quality of education offered


Degree opportunities
Reputation of institution
Internship opportunities
Faculty qualifications
Academic standards
Availability of modern facilities
Curriculum Emphasis
Student life
Student bodies

15.

Turner (1998)

9
9
9
9
9

Future job prospects


Recognition of qualification by employers
Availability of modern facilities
Teaching standard
International recognition of programme

16.

Joseph and Joseph (1998,


2000)

9
9
9
9
9

17.

Soutar and Turner (2002)

9
9
9
9
9

Value of education
Degree (content and structure)
Cost of education
Physical aspect and facilities
General (Information and influence of family
& friends)
Course suitability
Academia reputation
Job prospects
Teaching quality
Campus atmosphere

University reputation
Wide selection of courses
Total cost of attendance
Availability of financial aid
Reputation of the programme

34

18.

Reference
Pimpa (2003)

Important Attributes
9 Family influences (finance, information,
expectation, competition, persuasion)

19.

Price et al. (2003)

9
9
9
9
9

Course suitability
Availability of computers
Quality of library facilities
Good teaching reputation
Availability of quiet areas

20.

Chen and Zimitat (2006)

9
9
9
9

Environmental
Cultural and attitudinal influences
Social class
Family influence

2.6

Review of Multiple Attribute Researches

Several relevant analyses were demonstrated by different researchers to study the


factors that influence students intention to study at a HEI. As discussed in Section
2.5, studies indicate that students consider several factors when it comes to choosing a
HEI to attend. In this section, findings of those researches described multiple
attributes that influence students intention to study at a HEI, instead of reliance on a
single attribute.

Krampf and Heinlein (1981) undertook one of the earliest studies into the
marketing of universities, interviewing prospective students for a large mid-western
university in the USA. Their objective was to determine the needs of the prospective
student market, examine the university's image, and develop ways of identifying
potential students who had a high probability of matriculating and were eligible for
entry. Their sample was collected from the American College Testing program, which
provides more than 100 pieces of information for each student who completes their
profile. Using factor analysis, they found that prospective students who had a positive
attitude towards the university rated highly the attractiveness of the campus,

35

informative campus visits, recommendation of family, good programmes in their


major, informative university catalogue, closeness to home and the friendliness of the
campus atmosphere, suggesting that these factors might influence preferences.

Hooley and Lynch (1981) examined the choice processes of prospective


students of UK universities via a conjoint analysis. Qualitative research was used to
determine the attributes used in the decision process, followed by face-to-face data
collection using stimulus cards to obtain preferences for a set of experimentally
chosen university profiles. The six attributes that Hooley and Lynch (1981) identified
were course suitability, university location, academic reputation, distance from home,
type of university (modern/old), and advice from parents and teachers. The conjoint
analysis suggested that course suitability was the most important attribute in
determining university choice. According to Lynch (1981) prospective students
appeared to be prepared to accept that the conjoint approach was helpful and that a
larger study would permit more reliable conclusions to be drawn.

Oosterbeek et al. (1992) examined university choice and graduates' earnings in


the Netherlands. Their objectives were to determine whether different universities
were associated with different earnings prospects and whether the decision to attend a
particular university was influenced by these prospects. They found that although
there were significant differences, earnings prospects were not a particularly
important factor in the choice of a specific university.

Mazzarol et al. (1996) examined the factors that influenced international


students' choice of study destination using a sample of students studying in Australia.
Students were asked to rate the importance of 17 factors to their decision to study at a

36

particular institution. They found that the most important selection factor was the
recognition of their qualifications by future employers. This was followed by the
institution's reputation for quality, its willingness to recognize previous qualifications
and the staff's reputation for quality and expertise.

Lin (1997) investigated the reasons for students' intention to study at an


educational institution in the Netherlands. Self-completion questionnaires were
randomly distributed to students in the lobbies of seven universities. A combination of
descriptive and factor analysis was used to identify the main reasons for their choice
of institution. The most significant reasons for a student's choice of institution were
the quality of education offered, career opportunities, the school's reputation,
opportunity for traineeships, faculty qualifications, academic standards, whether
modern facilities were available, curriculum emphasis, student life and whether there
was an international student body.

Turner (1998) undertook a study of business undergraduates to determine their


reasons for choosing to enrol at a particular university. Students rated the most
important factors as future job prospects, obtaining qualifications that were valued by
employers, being able to use modern facilities, the standard of teaching and the
international recognition of the university's programmes.

Joseph and Joseph (1998, 2000) found that students from different
geographical areas revealed different preferences of attributes towards a HEI.
Moreover, they identified that male and female students differ in the selection criteria
they consider important when choosing a HEI. Some relevant multiple-attribute
analyses are summarized in Table 2.2.

37

Table 2.2: The literature concerning multiple-attributes employed in previous studies


Reference

Analysis Applied

1. Chapman (1981)

Model of Student College Choice


(combined model)

2. Krampf and
Heinlein (1981)

Multiple discriminant analysis

3. Hooley and
Lynch (1981)

MONANOVA
Conjoint analysis

4. Qureshi (1995)

Correlation analysis
ANOVA
Model of Consumer Behaviour

Kind of
Study
QT/QL

QT

QT/QL

QT

Top Five Factors Identified/Main Finding


1. Significant persons
2. Fixed college characteristics
3. College efforts to communicate with student
Finding: Identifies the steps a prospective user would follow
1. Attractiveness of the campus
2. Recommendation from family
3. Closeness to home
4. Good programme in their major
5. Friendliness of the campus atmosphere
Finding: Need of segmentation of prospective students
1. Course suitability
2. Academic reputation
3. University location
4. Distance from home
5. Advice from parents and teachers
1. University reputation
2. Wide selection of courses
3. Total cost of attendance
4. Availability of financial aid
5. Reputation of the Programme

Notes : QT = Quantitative, QL = Qualitative

38

Reference

Analysis Applied

5. Lin (1997)

Descriptive analysis
Factorial analysis

6. Mazzarol (1998)

Factor analysis
Logistic regression model

7. Joseph and Joseph Multi-attribute Model


(1998, 2000)
Descriptive analysis
Ranking-Important
Rotated factor score analysis

8. Ivy (2001)

Correspondence analysis

Kind of
Study
QT

QT

QT/QL

QT

Top Five Factors Identified/ Main Finding


1. Quality of education offered
2. Degree opportunities
3. Reputation of institution
4. Internship opportunities
5. Faculty qualifications
1. Image and resources
2. Coalition and forward integration
New Zealand Students:
1. Value of education
2. Degree (content and
structure)
3. Cost of education
4. Physical aspect and
facilities
5. General (Information and
influence of family &
friends)

Indonesian Students:
1. Course and career information
2. Physical aspect and facilities
3. Cost of education
4. Degree (content and structure)
5. Value of education

Old UK Universities:
1. Top quality teaching
2. Research output
3. The range of courses
offered
4. Staff reputation

South African Technikon:


1. Lower fees
2. Including bursaries
3. Physical facilities
4. Part-time tuition

Notes : QT = Quantitative, QL = Qualitative

39

Reference
9. Soutar and
Turner (2002)

Analysis Applied
Combined analysis/Conjoint analysis
Cluster analysis

Kind of
Study
QT

Top Five Factors Identified/ Main Finding


1. Course suitability
2. Academic reputation
3. Job prospects
4. Teaching quality
5. Campus atmosphere

10. Binsardi and


Ekwulugo (2003)

Ranking-independence analysis of
Chi-square statistics

QT/QL

Country Aspects:
1. Education standard/recog.
qualify - worldwide
2. Ease of university admissions
3. Ease of immigration
procedures
4. Ease of finding employment
5. Cost of living, accommodation,
safety and culture

11. Price et al. (2003)

Descriptive analysis

QT/QL

1. Course suitability
2. Availability of computers
3. Quality of library facilities
4. Good teaching reputation
5. Availability of quiet areas

Institution Aspects:
1. Lower tuition fee
2. Providing more
scholarship
3. Providing better quality
care and services
4. Supplying more facilities
5. Alumni networks
international students

Notes : QT = Quantitative, QL = Qualitative

40

2.7

Gender Effect on HEI Selection

Literature cited the notion that in general, males and females differ in their
psychological orientation along the dimensions of agency and communion (Bakan,
1966; Meyers-Levy, 1988). Meyers-Levy (1988) determined that males are
characterized as being relatively self-focused and are guided by agency goals
encompassing self-assertion and achievement-oriented concerns; whereas, females are
more sensitive to the needs of both self and others and are guided by communal
concerns including interpersonal affiliation, a desire to be at one with others, and
harmonizing relations between themselves and disparate parties. Hence, this theory
offers a partial explanation for why there are gender differences in processing
strategies (Laroche et al, 2000).

Meyers-Levy and Mahjeswaran (1991) and Meyers-Levy and Sternthal (1991)


assess differences in processing strategies based on a selectivity model, which
indicates that females attempt to engage in effortful, comprehensive, itemized analysis
of all available information giving equal weight to information relevant to self and
others. Whereas, males often do not engage in the comprehensive processing of
information, but rather they are selective information processors processing
heuristically and, therefore, missing subtle cues. In addition, males tend to rely on a
single cue or cues that are highly available and particularly salient in the focal
context.

These suggested differences between genders should be of interest for HEIs


across the nation as such knowledge will enable colleges to better understand their
targeted customers, as well as allowing HEIs to assess how and to what extent

41

changes occurring in the gender roles are likely to impact the kinds of appeals that
will be effective with students, both male and female (Mansfield and Warwick, 2005).

This view is supported by previous research findings. A pilot study by Schab


(1974) reported that the women in his sample frequently chose nonprofessional
reasons as explanations for why they were attending college. He found that women
viewed the motives for attending college of other women as: finding a suitable
husband, pleasing their parents, having fun, being able to rear their children better,
and pledging a particular sorority. Schabs findings suggested that it was unclear if
women were attending college in order to gain knowledge that would prepare them
for the workforce.

Hayes et al. (1995) demonstrated a research on gender differences by using a


different targeted population, different-determinant attributes and by exploring other
issues in the decision-making process of choosing a HEI. Specifically, the research
explored the impact of gender on two integral components of the college decisionmaking process the importance of determinant attributes of a university and the
importance of various information sources when choosing a university.

Shank and Fred (1998) performed a study regarding gender differences in the
university selection process. Results indicated that male and female students differ in
terms of the importance placed on various attributes of a university.

Jacobs (1999) described that the significant gender differences found among
high school seniors may be more important than ever as women now constitute the

42

majority of associate and other two year degree recipients, the majority of bachelor's
degree recipients, about half the master's and professional degree recipients, and
nearly 40% of doctoral degree recipients.

A more recent study reported that females attend college primarily to improve
their chances of success in the workplace (Green & Hill, 2003). This led us to probe if
there are different influential factors for choice of colleges between males and
females. In conclusion, there is no doubt that male and females differ in their decision
making for HEI attendance.

2.8

Academic Background Effect on HEI Selection

The Chapman (1981), Freeman (1999) and Cabera and La Nasas (2000) models all
illustrate aspects of student characteristics as an influencing factor to college
selection. Each of these three models examine the influence of academic status such
as the highest academic qualification, courses attended during high school, high
school achievement or academic ability and educational aspiration as characteristics
of students, which researchers have concluded influence how students conclude their
college choice.

Additionally, Sohail and Saeed (2003) claimed that in the Malaysian context,
the courses that students attended at pre-university or high school is positively
associated with a predisposition to attend a HEI in the future. Furthermore, Elizabeth
Ng (2003) observed that Malaysian students who studied in different programmes at
pre-university level have a distinct perception towards their HEI preference. In sum,

43

students coming from different academic backgrounds may have a distinctive


perceived importance on the attributes of a HEI.

2.9

Conclusion of the Chapter

This chapter discussed the relevant literature comprehensively. It is apparent that


there are several important attributes that influence students intention to study at a
HEI. These attributes were grouped in categories for the purpose of this study. As
discussed in earlier sections, the groups of attributes are cost of education, degree
(content and structure), physical aspects, facilities and resources, value of education,
institutional information, and People (Family, Friends, Peers and Teachers).

Also, the literature revealed that there are gender and academic background
differences in the importance students place on these attributes. The relationships and
the differences between these attributes will be further discussed in the next chapter.

44

CHAPTER

Conceptual Model
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Conceptual Model
3.3 Definition of Variables
3.4 Hypotheses Development
3.4.1 Cost of Education
3.4.2 Degree (Content and Structure)
3.4.3 Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources
3.4.4. Value of Education
3.4.5 Institutional Information
3.4.6 Influences from People (Family, friends, peers and
Teachers)
3.4.7 Gender Differences on Important Attributes of HEI
3.4.8 Academic Background Differences on Important
Attributes of HEI
3.5 Conclusion of the Chapter

Chapter 1
Introduction

Chapter 2
Literature Review

Chapter 3
Conceptual Model

Chapter 4
Research Methodology

Chapter 5
Data Analysis and
Findings

Chapter 6
Discussion and
Conclusion

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5

Introduction
Conceptual Model
Definition of Variables
Hypotheses Development
Conclusion of the Chapter

CHAPTER 3
3.1

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Introduction

This chapter presents the study using the theoretical approach, the proposed
conceptual model, variables and the research hypotheses. The research hypotheses
include the relationship between these important influencing factors and students
intention to study at a HEI. In addition, research hypotheses also cover the difference
concerning important attributes among students gender and academic background.
The development of the conceptual model is extensively discussed, and the variables
are defined in this chapter.

3.2

Conceptual Model

The theoretical model is adapted from a previous study by Cubillo et al. (2006).
Previous study proposes a theoretical model that integrates the different groups of
factors that influence the decision-making process of international students. The
theoretical model comprises the purchase intention, as a dependent and not observable
variable, and four factors with a total of 19 items identified from the existing
literature. The factors identified are personal reasons, country image, institution
image, and programme evaluation. The theoretical model is presented in Figure 3.1.

Modifications to the developed theoretical model are proposed in order to


accommodate the purpose of this study. The developed theoretical model has been
modified by substituting the five existing independent variables (IVs) with six IVs
that were adopted from Joseph and Joseph (1998, 2000). The six substituted IVs are

45

cost of education, degree (content and structure), physical aspects, facilities and
resources, value of education, institutional information, and influences from people
(family, friends, peers, and teachers). The theoretical model is modified in such a way
to study the important attributes that influence students intention to study at a HEI,
which is in line with the objectives of this study.

Personal Reasons
(3 Items)
Country Image Effect
(3 Items)
City Image
(4 Items)

Purchase
Intention

Institution Image
(5 Items)
Programme Evaluation
(4 Items)

Figure 3.1: A model of international students preference by Cubillo et al. (2006)

In addition, a further modification of the items within the IVs adopted from
Joseph and Joseph (1998, 2000) is made to address the important attributes that
influence students intention to study. The dependent variable (DV) proposed in this
study is the students intention to study at a HEI. This variable has the same
magnitude as the DV (purchase intention) in the adapted model. According to the
favourable behavioural intention studies demonstrated by Zeithaml et al. (1996), it
was found that certain behaviours signal that customers are forging bonds with a
company. When customers praise the firm, express a preference for the company over
46

others, increase the volume of their purchase, or agreeably pay a price premium, they
are indicating behaviourally that they are bonding with the company. The
phenomenon is similar to the HEI industry, in this case students act as customers. If
students intend to study at a HEI, the students reveal a favourable behavioural
intention towards the HEI. In turn, students may say positive things about the HEI,
recommend the HEI to others, remain loyal to the HEI, spend more time with the HEI,
and pay a premium rate for the HEI (Parasuraman et al., 1996). The proposed
conceptual model of this study is shown in Figure 3.2

Cost of Education

Degree (Content and


Structure)

Physical Aspects,
Facilities and Resources
Intention to Study at a
Higher Educational
Institution
Value of Education

Institutional Information

Family, Friends and Peers

Figure 3.2: The proposed conceptual model in this study, adapted from Zeithaml et
al. (1996), Joseph and Joseph (1998, 2000), and Cubillo et al. (2006).

47

The model presented in this study aims to explain the factors influencing the
study intention of Malaysian students. The intention to study is used as a predictor for
the preferential choices of students, and is defined as the intention of the student to
study at a particular HEI (Peng et al., 2000; Srikatanyoo and Gnoth, 2002; Cubillo et
al., 2006).

3.3

Definition of Variables

Items of IVs are adopted from the previous studies by Joseph and Joseph (1998,
2000). The items of DV are adopted from Zeithaml et al. (1996). These items are
reorganized in such a way as to be applicable in the Malaysian context. The definition
and items for each variable is summarized in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: The definition of each variable in the study

1.

Independent Variable
Cost of education (IV1)
Definition: Students financial consumption during study (Foskett et al, 2006)
Five Measurable items
- Reasonable cost
- Availability of financial aid
- Availability of scholarship
- Flexible payment of fee
- Accommodation at reasonable cost
Sample item
Provides education at a reasonable cost

48

2.

Independent Variable
Degree (Content and Structure) (IV2)
Definition: The availability and suitability of the offered courses to students
(Hooley and Lynch, 1981)
Five Measurable items
- Reasonable entry requirements
- Wide range of courses
- Flexibility in selecting courses/subjects
- Specialized programmes
- Reasonable completion periods of study
Sample item
Have reasonable entry requirements for its programme

3.

Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources (IV3)


Definition: Institutes structures and properties (Price et al., 2003)
Eight Measurable items
- Ideal Location
- Environment conducive to learning
- Great recreation and other facilities
- Expected social life on campus
- Availability of necessary resources (include facilities)
- Cleanliness
- Safety
- Quality faculty members
Sample item
Be situated in an ideal location

4.

Value of Education (IV4)


Definition: The preserved importance and principles of quality education (Kotler
and Fox, 1995)
Five Measurable items
- Well known reputation
- Well known academic values
- Recognition from other academic institutions
- Recognition from professional bodies
- Recognition from respected industries
Sample item
Well known reputation

49

5.

Independent Variable
Institutional Information (IV5)
Definition: Information made available by institutions to students (Cleopatra,
2004)
Five Measurable items
- Application process
- information availability
- Career opportunities
- Area of study
- Post-graduate studies
Sample item
Provide students with information regarding application processes

6.

People (Family, Friends, Peer and Teachers) (IV6)


Definition: Influences of family members, friends and peers that affect students
intention to study (Sheppard et al., 1992)
Eight Measurable items
- Rely on family members opinion
- Family views are important
- Rely on friends advice
- Friends perceptions are important
- Rely on peers idea
- Peers suggestions are vital
- Rely on teachers view
- Teachers recommendations are vital
Sample item
I usually rely on my family members opinion

1.

Dependent Variable
Intention to Study at a Higher Educational Institution (DV)
Definition: Students intention to further their study at a higher educational
institution (Mazzarol, 2000)
Six Measurable items
- Likelihood to further study
- Strong interest to pursue study
- Recommend the chosen HEI
- Say favourable things about the chosen HEI
- Willing to spend
- Willing to pay at high rate
Sample item
The likelihood to further my study at a HEI is high

50

3.4

Hypotheses Development

3.4.1

Cost of Education

In a previous study, James et al. (1999) stated that overall costs incurred have not
usually been a strong influence in the applicants decision and choice of university.
While confirming the above, research done in England (Fokskett et al., 2006)
suggests factors influencing students intention to study at a HEI could be turned
upside down now that financial considerations are of greater importance to students.
Moreover, the recently announced introduction of student fees in HEIs may result in
greater consumerist behaviour by applicants as the issue of value for money may
become a major factor affecting students decision making.

Thus, this study hypothesises that the cost of education is a significant factor
that influences students intention to study at a HEI in the Malaysian context.

H1: The cost of education is a significant factor that influences students intention to
study at a HEI

3.4.2

Degree (Content and Structure)

Studies (Mazzarol, T. 1997, 1998, 1999) have found that the majority of students
when making decisions for their further study only have limited knowledge about the
programme and its content. Thus, it may be argued that the ability of a HEI to offer a
wide range or specialised courses for its students is not the main factor that attracts
students intention to study at the HEI. Nevertheless, some other researchers
expressed contrasting opinions.

51

Hooley and Lynch (1981) observed that the suitability of the programme is the
most important factor, as students will accept any level of the other factors. In this
sense, prospective students will compare programmes offered with those being
promoted by competing institutions in order to check their suitability (Krampf and
Heinlein, 1981). Consequently, this study hypothesises that the content and structure
of degree is a significant factor that influences students intention to study at a HEI in
the Malaysian context.

H2: The content and structure of the degree is a significant factor that influences
students intention to study at a HEI

3.4.3

Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources

Some researchers cited that the physical aspects of a HEI, including its location and
good social life on campus, are not usually the determinants in students intention to
study at a HEI (Robert, 1998; Hemsley-Brown, 1999).

However, Price et al. (2003) found that when provided, high standard facilities
are considered as a relevant factor that influence the students selection of institution
for the pursuit of their studies. Hence, this study hypothesises that the physical
aspects, facilities and resources of an institution form a significant factor that
influences students intention to study at a HEI in the Malaysian context.

H3: The physical aspects, facilities and resources of an institution are a significant
factor that influences students intention to study at a HEI

52

3.4.4

Value of Education

Concerning the influence on students intention to study at a particular HEI in


comparison with other factors, previous studies (Foskett, 1999; Smith et al, 2002)
indicate that relatively the academic value of education is not an important factor.
In contrast, some researchers found that the value of education does play a role
in the students decision making process concerning further study. Joseph and Joseph
(1998, 2000) found that the value of education is the most important factor to be
considered by New Zealand students in their planning for further study, however, the
impact level varies between countries. Accordingly, this study hypothesises that the
value of education is a significant factor that influences students intention to study at
a HEI in the Malaysian context.

H4: The value of education is a significant factor that influences students intention
to study at a HEI

3.4.5

Institutional Information

Studies (Turner, 1998) have found that the institutional information does not have a
major affect on students intention to study at a HEI. Studies also indicate that in the
decision making process for further study, most students consider other factors as
being more important and that institutional information only acts as a guide for them.

However, there are arguments that institutional information is an important


factor that influences students intention to study at a HEI due to its ability to convey
a significant message that affects the decision making process. In addition, some
researchers argued that the comprehensive information provided by a HEI is the
primary factor that determines students intention to study at the HEI (Cleopatra,

53

2004). Therefore, this study hypothesises that the institutional information is a


significant factor that influences students intention to study at a HEI in the Malaysian
context.

H5: The institutional information is a significant factor that influences students


intention to study at a HEI

3.4.6

Influences from People (Family, Friends, Peers and Teachers)

Results from previous studies (McMahon, 1992, Kemp, 1995), showed that many HEI
marketers were of the opinion that students who intend to continue their studies at a
higher level were often those that were considered mature, independent and in
possession of a critical thinking mentality. Hence, they concluded that the influence of
students family, friends and peers was not the main factor affecting their intention to
study at a HEI.

Nevertheless, recently many academic researchers have found that family


members and friends act as significant people that encourage students to study at a
HEI (Krampf and Heinlein, 1981; Turner, 1998; Bourke, 2000). Moreover, this
situation is more obviously revealed in the Asian context based on research results
(Pimpa, 2003; Chen and Zimitat, 2006). As a result, this study hypothesises that the
significant people (family, friends, peers and teachers) are a significant factor that
influence students intention to study at a HEI in the Malaysian context.

H6: The significant people (family, friends, peers and teachers) is a significant factor
that influences students intention to study at a HEI

54

3.4.7

Gender Differences on Important Attributes of HEI

Numerous studies have addressed the differences between males and females with
regard to their psychological orientation and behaviour. From a consumer behaviour
perspective (in this study, students as customers), there have been several studies
directed towards gender differences. Studies have addressed gender differences in
information processing strategies (Meyers-Levy and Maheswran, 1991), roles and
attitudes (Fischer and Arnold, 1994), cueing and judgment-related activities (MeyersLevy and Sternthal, 1991), and right-brain/left- brain activity (Meyers-Levy, 1994) to
name a few.

Previous studies have also found judgment-related differences between males


and females when evaluating promotional materials, and their attentiveness to
different forms of advertising appeals (Holbrook, 1986; Meyers-Levy, 1994). This
finding may draw the attention from HEI marketers and is significant in advertising
and promotion strategies.

Given that research has also found gender differences in shopping behaviour
(Roberts and Wortzel, 1984; .Zeithaml, 1985) and in the characteristics males and
females consider when evaluating products (Fischer and Arnold, 1994; Meyers-Levy
and Sternthal, 1991), it is likely that gender differences are extended to the evaluative
criteria in the selection of a college. As a result, this study hypothesises that there are
significant differences between students gender concerning the importance placed on
the factors that influence students intention to study at a higher educational
institution.

H7: Male and female students differ in the importance placed on the factors that
influence students intention to study at a higher educational institution.

55

3.4.8

Academic Background Differences on Important Attributes of HEI

Sohail and Saeed (2003) proposed that the different academic background of students
leads to different preferences towards a HEI. Other researchers found that students,
who come from a distinct academic background, especially those who studied
different courses at pre-university level, revealed different perceptions of which HEI
to attend (Hassan and Shariff, 2006).
Nevertheless, a few studies were found that addressed the differences in
students academic background with regards to the HEI selection process in the
Malaysian context. Consequently, this study hypothesises that there is a significant
difference between students academic background and the importance placed on the
factors that influence students intention to study at a higher educational institution.

H8: Students with different academic background will differ in the importance placed
on the factors that influence students intention to study at a higher educational
institution.

A comprehensive conceptual model and the proposed hypotheses are presented


in Figure 3.3.

56

Independent Variables, IVs


Cost of Education
(5 Items, Interval)

Degree (Content and Structure)


(5 Items, Interval)

Physical Aspects, Facilities


and Resources
(8 Items, Interval)

Dependent Variable, DV

H1

H2

H3

H4
Value of Education
(5 Items, Interval)

Students Intention to study at a


Higher Educational Institution
(6 Items, Interval)

H5
Institutional Information
(5 Items, Interval)

H6

People (Family, Friends,


Peers and Teacher)
(8 Items, Interval)

Figure 3.3: The conceptual model and proposed hypotheses in the study

As a summary, in total there are eight proposed hypotheses in this study:

H1: The cost of education is a significant factor that influences students intention to
study at a HEI
H2: The content and structure of the degree is a significant factor that influences
students intention to study at a HEI
H3: The physical aspects, facilities and resources of an institution are a significant
factor that influences students intention to study at a HEI

57

H4: The value of education is a significant factor that influences students intention
to study at a HEI
H5: The institutional information is a significant factor that influences students
intention to study at a HEI
H6: The significant people (family, friends, peers and teachers) is a significant factor
that influences students intention to study at a HEI
H7: Male and female students will differ in the importance placed on the factors that
influence students intention to study at a higher educational institution.
H8: Students with different academic background will differ in the importance
placed on the factors that influence students intention to study at a higher
educational institution.

3.5

Conclusion of the Chapter

This chapter discussed the development of the proposed conceptual model. This
model combines a few previous studies as a platform, allowing the present study to
investigate the relationships between variables, and the difference in students gender,
and academic background concerning their intention to study at a HEI. Each proposed
variable is comprehensively defined in this chapter.

A total of eight research hypotheses have been developed to address the


research objectives and research question. These hypotheses will act as the guide to
the sequential analysis, which will be discussed in Chapter 5. The next chapter
discusses the detail of the research methodology employed in this study.

58

CHAPTER

Research Methodology
4.1 Introduction
4.2
4.3 Selection of Sample
4.4 Sampling
4.5 Instrument Design
4.6 Data Collection
4.7 Research Approaches
4.7.1 Determination of Sample Normality
4.7.2 Descriptive Analyses
4.7.3 Validity Test
4.7.4 Reliability Test
4.7.5 Relationship Approach
4.7.6 Differences Approach
4.8 Assumptions of the Study
4.9 Conclusion of the Chapter

Chapter 1
Introduction

Chapter 2
Literature Review

Chapter 3
Conceptual Model

Chapter 4
Research Methodology

Chapter 5
Data Analysis and
Findings

Chapter 6
Discussion and
Conclusion

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9

Introduction
Research Design
Selection of Sample
Sampling
Instrument Design
Data Collection
Research Approaches
Assumptions of the Study
Conclusion of the Chapter

CHAPTER 4
4.1

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter reveals the research methodology employed in the present study. The
chapter begins with a discussion on the sample selection and sampling, followed by
instrument design and data collection. A complete methodology of the performed
analyses is discussed in the later section of this chapter.

4.2

Research Design

The research design is the blueprint for fulfilling objectives and answering questions.
In this study, the qualitative approach was employed as the theories are well
developed and lead to a formal conceptual model. As a result, hypotheses can be
developed and tested. The instrument was adapted from previous studies (Zeithaml et
al., 1996; Joseph and Joseph, 1998 & 2000). The instrument was a self-administered
questionnaire that was distributed to the respondents in the form of survey, and the
data collected was primary data for the analysis.

4.3

Selection of Sample

The targeted sample of this study was students who were currently attending preuniversity level programmes, including Form Six (high school), GCE A-Level, local
matriculation, overseas Pre-U courses, and other foundation courses. Recent school
leavers, for instance, those students who graduated from their secondary school within
the previous two years were eligible for participation in this study. However, no
school leavers participated in the study; all respondents were currently attending preuniversity level programmes.

59

The targeted sample was defined as such, as these groups of people have the
highest possibility of continuing their study at a HEI. In other words, their intention to
continue their study at a HEI was assumed. Consequently, they are of interest to HEI
marketers for identifying what factors influence the students intention to study at a
HEI. Moreover, knowing the reasons why students choose a university and course of
study is central to developing institutional positioning in an increasingly competitive
HE environment.

4.4

Sampling

As mentioned in Chapter 1, most of the PHEIs that conduct pre-university courses


are concentrated around major urban areas in the Klang Valley. Moreover, the number
of public schools that offer Form Six (STPM) in this area is higher than other states.
As a result, a sample from this segment may adequately represent the actual
population. Thus, this study focuses on Malaysian students who are currently
attending courses at the pre-university level around the Klang Valley.

Sampling was carried out in selected PHEIs, matriculation centres and tuition
centres. The samples were collected using stratified convenience sampling. Using this
method, the selection of sample for this research was based on the appropriateness of
the research objectives; specifically, the respondents academic background (as
respondents highest qualification in questionnaire) was divided into three distinct
categories with a minimum of 150 responses each; as presented in Table 4.1.
Therefore, respondents were asked to identify their study status, and then only
qualified respondents were considered for participation in the sampling process.

60

Table 4.1: Purposive sampling and targeted response


Academic Background
Targeted Response
1.
Form Six/STPM
150
2.
GCE A-level
150
3.
L.O.U.
150
Total
450
* L.O.U. = Local matriculation, overseas Pre-U, university foundation programme
4.5

Instrument of Measurement

The instrument used in this study was designed based on prior published researches
regarding the important factors affecting students selection of a HEI. A multiple
attribute model was developed for use in this study by adapting those employed in
previous studies (Zeithaml et al., 1996; Joseph and Joseph, 1998 & 2000; Cubillo et
al., 2006).

The instrument was a structured self-administered questionnaire that was


distributed to the respondents in the form of survey and then collected back for use as
the primary data. Basically, the questionnaire contained three sections:
Section A:

Attributes that affect university or college choice

Section B:

Ranking order of important attributes

Section C:

Respondents demographic information

In Section A, items were designed to measure and compare the importance of


factors that influence respondents intention to study at a HEI. The questionnaire
comprises 42 items and seven variables; six IVs and a DV. The measurable items of
IVs and DV were adapted from previous researches done by Joseph and Joseph (1998
& 2000) and Zeithaml et al. (1996), respectively. Responses to both the IVs and DV
were measured based on a five-point Likert scale, in increasing order, ranging from
strongly disagree, disagree, not sure, agree, to strongly agree. In order to
make the survey easy and convenient for the respondents, the five scales were

61

displayed in numerical form in the questionnaire, where one represented strongly


disagree, and five represented strongly agree.

In Section B, a table was provided for respondents to place the ranking order
in the blank column, regarding their perceived importance of factors influencing their
intention to study at a HEI. The ranking order of important factors ranged from one to
six in decreasing order of importance. For example, one represented the most
important factor, whereas six represented the least important factor. An example was
give next to the table to provide assistance in answering the section correctly and to
avoid any confusion.

Section C, consisted of a series of questions addressing the respondents


demographic information. These questions were used to identify the respondents
gender, age group, ethnic group, religion, highest academic qualification, family size
and gross monthly income. Based on the obtained demographic data, the respondents
characteristics could be identified. It was significant in this study as stratified
sampling was applied and, therefore, responses from the subgroups must be in line
with the proposed quantity. In this case, respondents academic background was the
controllable stratum.

4.6

Data Collection

Self-administered questionnaires were distributed in the form of a survey and


completed by the respondents. The respondents were informed that participation was
voluntary. The data collection was completed with assistance from lecturers from
HEIs, and teachers from tuition centres. The results of the sampling are presented in
Chapter 5.

62

4.7

Research Approaches

Data was coded using Statistical Package for Social Studies (SPSS), version 15.0.
Data was screened and cleaned in order to identify any significant outlier or missing
value.

4.7.1

Determination of Sample Normality

In order to perform the parametric analyses on the samples, all collected scale type
data from the survey was subject to exploration for the normality tests before
subsequent analyses. The objective of sample normality tests is to ensure the sample
is normally distributed and randomly selected. It is important that the normality of the
sample is confirmed before subjecting it to inferential and differential analyses, as it
proves the capability and appropriateness of the sample in representing the actual
population. Thus, the findings from consequent analyses in this study can be
generalized to the population with confidence.

Several normality tests were carried out on the data by employing graphical
and statistical analyses on the sample as shown in the following table:

Table 4.2: Normality tests employed in this research


Method

Analysis

1.

Histogram

Graphical

2.

Stem-and-leaf Plots

Graphical

3.

Boxplot

Graphical

4.

Descriptive Statistics

Statistical

63

4.7.2

Descriptive Analyses

Descriptive analyses were performed on two distinctive sections of the collected data,
namely, Section A and Section B. The analyses were:

Section A: Mean and standard deviation for items in each variable; and
computed mean and standard deviation for the variables.
Section B: Rank ordering score for the influencing factors.

4.7.3

Validity Test

The validity test of the instrument in this study was performed by factor analysis.
Generally, factor analysis is carried out to condense a large set of scale items down to
a smaller, more manageable number of factors. It can be done by summarizing the
underlying patterns of correlation and looking for groups of closely related items.

In this study, there were 36 items allocated in seven variables, including six
IVs and a DV. The objective of the validity test in this study was to identify whether
the proposed items were valid for measuring the underlying concept. In this case, the
concept referred to the respondents perceived importance of factors influencing their
intention to study at a HEI. In order words, the confirmatory factor analysis approach
was employed. In short, the validity test was demonstrated to test and ensure the
appropriateness of the instrument used in the present study.

4.7.4

Reliability Test

The reliability test of this instrument was examined through Cronbachs Alpha
Coefficient. The objective of the reliability test was to ensure that the measurable
items of each variable were measuring the same underlying construct. If the results
reveal a high alpha value then the internal consistency of the set of items is

64

determined. Consequently, these items were eligible for making up the scale (be
computed) for the following analyses.

4.7.5

Relationship Approach

Two inferential analyses were carried out to investigate the relationship between the
proposed IVs and DV in the present study; Pearsons correlation and multiple linear
regression. First, the correlation analysis was carried out to identify the significant
strength and direction of the linear relationship between the proposed IVs and DV.
Computed items under each variable and averaged variable score of IVs and DV were
subject to analysis using Pearsons correlation.

Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate the prediction of


the DV from the six proposed IVs. Moreover, this analysis was used to indicate the
predictor and its contribution towards the criterion. In this study, the independent
variables were the suspected predictors and the dependent variable was the criterion.

4.7.6 Differences Approach


The t-test was used to compare the mean score of the continuous items. In the
analysis, the different groups of respondents were defined by their gender, male
respondents and female respondents. ANOVA was performed to compare the mean
score of three groups of respondents. In this section, the respondents were divided
into three different groups according to their academic background, namely, Form
six/STPM, GCE A-level, and others (comprising all other courses). The ultimate
objective of differential analyses is to identify which groups are significantly different
from one another on the proposed variables. The overall research approaches are
summarized in Table 4.3.
65

Table 4.3: The summary of analysis


Analysis
Normality tests

Methodology
Objective of Analysis
Graphical and statistical To ensure the sample are normally
normality tests
distributed and the homoscedasticity of
sample

Descriptive
(A) Comparison of means

Statistical description

(B) Rank ordering

Statistical description

Validity test

Factor Analysis

Reliability test

Cronbachs Alpha
Coefficient

Relationship Approach
(A) Relationships between
variables
(B) Predictors and its
contribution to
criterion
Differences Approach
(A) Difference between
gender
(B) Difference between
academic background

4.8

Pearsons Correlation
Multiple Regression

Independent Sample
t-test
One-way ANOVA

To compare the tendency of means for


measured items and variables
To identify the orders of important factors
To confirm the items were valid to measure
the underlying concept
To ensure the internal consistency of the
measureable item scale

To identify the relationships between the


IVs and the DV
To determine the significant predictors and
their contribution towards the criterion

To identify differences in important


attributes between gender
To identify differences in important
attributes between academic backgrounds

Assumptions of the Study


There are other factors that may influence the students intention to study at a

HEI. However, other factors are not considered as significant factors as the impact
level may be negligible.

Students or respondents who participated in the survey are assumed to have a


high possibility and intention to further their study at a HEI.

All the respondents were assumed to understand the items in the questionnaire,
and answer honestly. As a result, the findings in this study represent real situations.

66

4.9

Conclusion of the Chapter

The research methodology employed in the present study was extensively discussed
in this chapter. The discussion included research design, sample selection and
sampling process, measurement design and the data analysis the study is going to
apply. The findings of these analyses are exhibited in Chapter 5.

67

CHAPTER

Data Analysis and Findings


5.1 Introduction
5.2 Result of Sampling
5.3 Respondents Profile
5.4 Normality Test
5.4.1 Histogram
5.4.2 Stem-and-leaf Plots
5.4.3 Boxplot
5.4.4 Descriptive Statistic
5.4.5 Summary of Normality Tests
5.5 Descriptive Analysis
5.6 Validity Test
5.6.1 Independent Variables
5.6.2 Dependent Variables
5.7 Reliability Test
5.8 Correlation Analysis
5.9 Multiple Regression Analysis
5.10 Independent Sample t-Test
5.11 One-way Analysis of Variance (One-way ANOVA)
5.12 Conclusion of the Chapter

Chapter 1
Introduction

Chapter 2
Literature Review

Chapter 3
Conceptual Model

Chapter 4
Research Methodology

Chapter 5
Data Analysis and
Findings

Chapter 6
Discussion and
Conclusion

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12

Introduction
Result of Sampling
Respondents Profile
Normality Test
Descriptive Analysis
Validity Test
Reliability Test
Correlation Analysis
Multiple Regression Analysis
Independent Sample t-Test
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Conclusion of the Chapter

CHAPTER 5
5.1

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter presents the findings obtained from the analyses. The chapter begins
with the results of the sampling, which illustrates the sources of respondents from
various locations within the Klang Valley. The exact locations and response rate are
clearly indicated. The demographical data is shown in the respondents profile
section. Normality tests were performed to ensure the sample normality, then
descriptive analyses were performed for each item and variable. Two inferential
analyses were carried out, namely, Pearsons correlation and multiple regression. The
bivariate analysis analyzes the relationship between the independent variables and the
dependent variable. Multiple regression analysis is to indicate its predictor and
criterion. In addition, differential analyses including independent t-test and One-Way
ANOVA were carried out to identify the difference between the respondents gender
and highest qualification (academic), respectively.

5.2

Result of Sampling

Questionnaires were distributed in the form of a survey to students currently at preuniversity level in the three selected sampling areas: tuition centres at Jalan Petaling,
International Islamic University Malaysia (UIAM) Matriculation Centre, and private
institutes at Wangsa Maju, Subang Jaya and Cheras. The entire sampling was
completed in approximately 22 days. A total of 800 questionnaires were distributed
and 522 responses were returned, contributing to a 65.25 percent response rate, which
is reasonably good. However, a total of 30 students responses were excluded from

68

analysis due to leaving one or more items blank. Eight responses were excluded due
to incorrect answers in their questionnaires. Another four responses from
undergraduate students were eliminated as they were not qualified as the targeted
sample for this study. The remaining 480 respondents accounted for 60.00 percent of
the total number of distributed questionnaires and were eventually used for analysis.
The report of sampling is shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: The Detail of Sampling Result

Sampling Location
1. (A) Pusat Tuisyen K
(Jalan Petaling)
(B) Pusat Tuisyen Y
(Jalan Petaling)

2.

3.

International Islamic
University Malaysia
Matriculation Centre
(Petaling Jaya)
(A) Tunku Abdul
Rahman College,
TARC (Wangsa
Maju)
(B) Taylor University
College (Subang
Jaya)
(C) University
College Sedaya
International,
UCSI (Cheras)
Total

Return of
Questionnaire

Return of
Questionnaire
(Percentage)

Total
Respondents
Subject to
Analysis

100

52

52.00

48

100

77

77.00

72

100

68

92.50

63

300

186

62.00

170

100

84

84.00

78

100

55

55.00

49

800

522

65.25

480

Number of
Questionnaires
Distributed

69

5.3

Respondents Profile

The respondents demographical data is descriptively analyzed in this section. The


comprehensive demographical profiles of the respondents are shown in Table 5.2.

Female respondents outnumber male respondents in this sample, accounting


for 57.90 percent and 42.1 percent, respectively. The majority of the respondents are
from the 16-18 years (46.70%) age group and 19-21 years (49.60%), and no
respondents fall in the age group of 15 and below. Although there are some
respondents aged over 22 years the number is relatively small. As a result, this finding
manifests that the age range of pre-university level students in Malaysia is mostly
between 16 to 21 years old.

From the ethnic perspective, Chinese represented the highest number of


respondents (40.2%) among the ethnic groups, followed by Malay (33.1%), Indian
(25%), and others (1.7%). In the religion context, about 35.20 percent, 30.90 percent
and 22.80 percent of respondents were Buddhist, Muslim and Christian, respectively.

The majority of respondents come from small (1-4 persons) and average (5-6
persons) sized families. These family sizes account for 79.5 percent in this category.
Most respondents family gross monthly income is RM6,000 and below which
accounted for 86.6 percent, and the largest income group is in the range of RM2,001
to RM4,000 at 38.5 percent. This result indicates that most of the respondents have a
medium family monthly income level. The findings are graphically shown in Figure
5.1 to Figure 5.7.

70

Table 5.2: The Demographical Profiles of the Respondents (N = 480)

Gender

Male
Female
Total

Age Group

15 years or below
16-18 years
19-21 years
22 years and above
Total

Ethnic Group

Malay
Chinese
Indian
Others

Religion

Muslim
Christian
Buddhist
Hindu
Others

Total

Total
Highest
Qualification
(Including
Currently
Attending)

Family Size
(Including
Respondent)

Family Gross
Monthly Income

STPM/Form Six
GCE A-Level
Oversea Pre-U
Local Matriculation
University Foundation Programme
Others
Total
1-2 persons
3-4 persons
5-6 persons
7-8 persons
Above 8 persons
Total
RM 2000 or less
RM 2001 RM 4000
RM 4001 RM 6000
RM 6001 RM 8000
RM 8001 RM 10000
RM 10001 and above
Total

Frequency, n

Percentage, %

202
278
480
0
224
238
18
480
159
193
120
8
480
164
104
130
77
5
480
160
160
60
63
37
0
480
16
183
183
81
17
480
137
185
94
50
8
6
480

42.10
57.90
100
0.00
46.70
49.60
3.80
100
33.10
40.20
25.00
1.70
100
34.20
21.70
27.10
16.00
1.00
100
33.3
33.3
12.5
13.1
7.70
0.00
100
3.30
38.10
38.10
16.90
3.50
100
28.50
38.50
19.60
10.40
1.70
1.30
100

71

Respondent's Gender

Male, n = 202
42.1 %
Female, n = 278
57.9 %

Figure 5.1: The gender group profile of the respondents

Respondent's Age Group


46.7%

49.6%

250
200
Number of 150
Students 100
3.8%
50
0
16-18 years

19-21 years

22 years and
above

Year

Figure 5.2: The age group profile of the respondents

72

Respondent's Ethnic Group

Others
n =8, 1.7%

Indian
n =120, 25%

Malay
n =159, 33.1%

Chinese
n =193, 40.2%

Figure 5.3: The ethnic group profile of the respondents

Respondent's Religion

Hindu
n =77, 16%

Others
n=5, 1%

Muslim
n=164, 34.2%

Buddhist
n =130, 27.1%
Christian
n=104, 21.7%

Figure 5.4: The profile of respondents religion

73

Respondent's Highest Qualification (Including


Currently Attending)
University
Foundation
Programme
n =37, 8%

Local
Matriculation
n =63, 13%

STPM/ Form
Six
n =160, 33%

Overseas
Pre-U
n =60, 13%
GCE A-Level
n =160, 33%
Figure 5.5: The highest qualification status profile of the respondents

Respondent's Family Size (Including Respondent)


200
180
160
140
120
Number of
100
Respondents 80
60
40
20
0

38.1%

38.1%

16.9%

3.3%

3.5%

1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
Above 8
persons persons persons persons persons
Family Size

Figure 5.6: The family size profile of the respondents

74

Respondent's Family Size (Including Respondent)


200
180
160
140
Number of 120
100
Respondents
80
60
40
20
0

38.1%

38.1%

16.9%

3.3%

1-2
persons

3.5%

3-4
persons

5-6
persons

7-8
persons

Above 8
persons

Family Size

Figure 5.7: The family gross monthly income profile of the respondents

75

5.4

Normality Test

According to Pallant (2007), normality is described by a symmetrical bell shaped


curve, which has the greatest frequency of scores in the middle, with smaller
frequencies towards the extremes. In this study, after exploration for the normality
tests, some potential outliers were found in the findings and then removed in
sequence. Hence, the total sample size was reduced from N = 522 to N = 480. The
normalized findings are shown in the following sub-chapters.

5.4.1 Histogram
All the scale type data shows a normally distributed curve in the histogram chart. The
findings indicate that the sample is normally distributed. The histogram is shown in
Appendix II.

5.4.2

Stem-and-leaf Plots

Stem-and-leaf plots of the collected data are emerging normal distributions; therefore
the sample is normally distributed. The result of the stem-and-leaf plots is shown in
Appendix II.

5.4.3

Boxplot

The potential outliers were counter checked by boxplot and all potential outliers were
eliminated. The boxplot of collected data is shown in Appendix II. The distribution
of the boxplot showing the sample is normally distributed after drawing the potential
outlier respondents data (normalization). Furthermore, no significant outliers were
revealed in the boxplot for the any of the variables.

76

5.4.4

Descriptive Statistics

The normality of the sample is deduced from the results of the Skewness and Kurtosis
tests. All the values are between -2 to +2, which fall in the normal range for the
Skewness and Kurtosis tests (Sekaran, 2003). Therefore, the normality of the sample
is acceptable. The details of the findings are reported in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Statistical normality tests for scale data from the sample (N = 480)

Mean
5%
Trimmed
Mean
Median
Variance
Std.
Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Skewness
Kurtosis

Cost of
education

Degree
(content
and
structure)

Physical
aspects,
facilities and
resources

Value of
Education

3.62

3.61

3.84

3.62

3.62

3.60
0.17

Institutional
information

People
(Family,
friends, peers
and teachers)

Intention
to study
at a HEI

3.44

3.74

3.64

3.93

3.85

3.44

3.73

3.65

3.93

3.60
0.30

4.00
.145

3.40
.424

4.00
.241

3.75
.526

4.00
.288

0.41

0.54

0.38

0.65

0.49

0.73

0.54

2.80
4.40
1.60
0.18
-1.84

2.20
5.00
2.80
-1.53
-1.92

3.00
4.50
1.50
-1.77
-1.14

2.00
5.00
3.00
0.50
-0.98

2.00
5.00
3.00
-1.64
-0.97

1.00
5.00
4.00
-1.44
1.76

2.17
5.00
2.83
-0.46
1.12

5.4.5 Summary of Normality Tests


All the normality tests (histogram, stem-and-leaf plots, boxplot, and descriptive
statistics shows the data are normally distributed. The results of the tests are
summarized in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4:

Summary of normality tests of the sample (N = 480)

Test
Histogram
Stem-and-leaf Plots
Boxplot
Descriptive Statistic (Skewness and Kurtosis)

Normal Distribution of Sample


Support
Support
Support
Support

77

The overall results indicate that the distribution of the sample is normal.
Hence, the sample is acceptable and can be considered as normally distributed and
randomly selected from the population. The importance of the determination of the
samples normality is to ensure its homoscedasticity. The residual between the
observed value and the predicted value must be small enough so that the model fits
the sample indicating that the sample is representative of the population.

5.5

Descriptive Analysis

The summary of the means for the 42 items according to each variable is shown in
Table 5.5. All the items have a mean score of above 3.00. Thus, the findings indicate
that the majority of the respondents agreed with the statement of items for each
variable, and considered those items important for their intention to study at a HEI.

Table 5.5: Summary of the mean of items according variable (N = 480)

Variable
Cost of education(IV1)
C1 Provide education at a reasonable cost
C2 Make financial aid available to its students
C3 Make scholarships available to its students.
C4 Make flexible payment of fee to its students
C5 Make accommodation available to its students at reasonable cost
Degree (Content and Structure) (IV2)
D1 Have reasonable entry requirements for its programmes
D2 Provide a wide range of courses for students to select from
Provide students flexibility in selecting courses/subjects during
D3
their study
Provide students with a number of specialized programmes to suit
D4
their needs
D5 Offer degrees with reasonable completion periods of study
Note: Importance score: 5 = maximum, 1 = minimum

Importance
Mean S.D.

3.63
3.62
3.59
3.63
3.63

0.61
0.65
0.69
0.61
0.60

3.64
3.57

0.68
0.82

3.56

0.75

3.64

0.72

3.63

0.70

78

Variable
Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources (IV3)
P1 Be situated in an ideal location
P2 Provide students with an environment that is conductive to learning
P3 Provide students with great recreation and other facilities
P4 Provide students with an expected social life on campus
Provide students with all the necessary resources that are required
P5
for their education
P6 Provide students with a clean study environment
P7 Provide students with a safe condition for study
P8 Have exceptional quality of faculty members

Importance
Mean S.D.

3.87
3.82
3.94
3.83

0.49
0.56
0.48
0.51

3.84

0.51

3.72
3.86
3.83

0.56
0.51
0.50

Value of Education (IV4)


V1 Well known for the reputation
V2 Well known for their academic value
V3 Well recognized by other academic institutions
V4 Well recognized by professional bodies
V5 Well recognized by respected industries

3.49
3.41
3.37
3.46
3.48

0.79
0.87
0.81
0.77
0.76

Institutional Information (IV5)


I1 Provide students with information regarding application processes
I2 Make information easily available to students from time to time
I3 Provide students with information regarding career opportunities
I4 Provide students with information regarding their area of study
I5 Provide students with information regarding post-graduate studies

3.73
3.72
3.76
3.78
3.71

0.54
0.54
0.51
0.55
0.58

People (Family, Friend, Peers and Teachers )(IV6)


F1 I usually rely on my family members opinion.
F2 My family views on the HEI are important.
F3 I usually rely on my friends advice.
F4 My friends perceptions towards the HEI are important.
F5 I usually rely on my peers idea.
F6 My peers suggestions are vital.
F7 I usually rely on my teachers view.
F8 My teachers recommendations are vital.

3.68
3.65
3.68
3.52
3.67
3.52
3.71
3.66

0.81
0.80
0.82
0.90
0.80
0.92
0.80
0.85

4.08
3.90
3.75
4.05
3.95
3.84

0.70
0.72
0.81
0.70
0.70
0.85

Intention to Study at a Higher Educational Institution (DV)


S1 The likelihood of furthering my study at a HEI is high.
S2 I have a strong interest in pursuing my study at a HEI.
S3 I will recommend the HEI I choose to my friends.
S4 I will say favourable things about the HEI I chose.
S5 I am willing to spend to study at a HEI.
S6 I am willing to pay a high rate for the HEI I chose.
Note: Importance score: 5 = maximum, 1 = minimum

79

A summary of the computed means of all the items according to the variables
is shown in Table 5.6. The overall scores for each variable were obtained by
averaging the response to the appropriate items.

Table 5.6: Summary of the means of computed items according to variable (N = 480)
Importance
Mean
S.D.
3.62
0.41
3.61
0.55
3.84
0.38
3.44
0.65
3.74
0.50
3.64
0.73
3.93
0.54

Variable
Cost of Education
Degree (Content and Structure)
Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources
Value of Education
Institutional Information
People (Family, Friends, Peers and Teachers)
Intention to Study

The means of all computed items are above 3.00. This result indicates that the
respondents consider all the factors listed above have some importance regarding their
intention to continue their studies at a HEI.

The results of ranking the important factors influencing students intention to


study at a higher educational institute are shown in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7: The ranking order of each important factor (N = 480)


Variable
Cost of Education (IV1)

Degree (Content and Structure) (IV2)

Rank (I)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6

Number of
respondent, n
240
99
79
24
14
24
Total
35
60
49
155
92
89
Total

Score
(I n)
240
198
237
96
70
144
985
35
120
147
620
460
534
1916
80

Variable
Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources
(IV3)

Rank (I)
1
2
3
4
5
6

Value of Education (IV4)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Institutional Information (IV5)

1
2
3
4
5
6

People (Family,
Teachers) (IV6)

Friends,

Peers

and

1
2
3
4
5
6

Number of
respondent, n
92
78
197
76
25
12
Total
28
29
46
101
215
61
Total
15
31
30
104
116
184
Total
69
185
78
21
17
110
Total

Score
(I n)
92
156
591
304
125
72
1340
28
58
138
404
1075
366
2069
15
62
90
416
580
1104
2267
69
370
234
84
85
660
1502

In order to obtain the score for each factor, the ranking was multiplied by the
number of respondents accordingly. Thus, the sum score of each factor was obtained.
The scores were sorted in ascending order (from low to high), with the lowest score
indicating the first rank, and the highest score indicating the last rank. The result of
this analysis is shown in Table 5.8.

81

Table 5.8: The overall score of each factor ranked by respondents (N = 480)

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6

Variable
Cost of Education
Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources
People (Family, Friends, Peers and Teachers)
Degree (Content and Structure)
Value of Education
Institutional Information

Total Score
985
1340
1502
1916
2069
2267

In summary, in ranking order analysis, cost of education, physical aspects,


facilities and resources of the HEI, and the people factor such as influences from
family members, friends, peers, and teachers, are the three that students perceive as
the most important factors influencing their intention to study at a HEI.

5.6

Validity Test

The validity test is used to determine that the questions in the questionnaire are
tapping the right concept and not something else (Sekaran, 2003). Validity tests
determine how well an instrument measures the particular concept it is supposed to
measure. Pallant (2007) cited that there are two main issues to consider in determining
whether a particular data set of a sample is appropriate for factor analysis; sample size
and the strength of the relationship among the items or variables. For sample size,
Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) suggested that it is comforting to have at least 300 cases
for factor analysis. The sample size of this study is 480, which exceeds the minimum
number required, therefore, the data set for the sample is acceptable for factor
analysis. The validity test is performed through factor analysis. Factor analysis is
carried out to validate the appropriateness of the measureable items used in this study.

82

The strength of the inter-correlation among the items must also be considered.
According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), a correlation coefficient (loading level)
greater than 0.3 is considered acceptable for analysis. Based on the result of factor
analysis, a total of 36 items listed in the independent variables were included. An
inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of 0.3
and above, see Appendix III.

Two statistical measures were also carried out to determine the ability to
perform factor analysis. In other words, the suitability of data for factor analysis was
assessed. First, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy, and
Bartletts test of Sphericity. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), Bartletts test
of Sphericity should be significant (p < 0.05) in order for the factor analysis to be
considered appropriate, while the minimum value for a good factor analysis is 0.60
for the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index (Pallant, 2007). In this section, two factor
analyses were carried out separately for the independent variables and the dependent
variable.

5.6.1 Independent Variables


The results of the KMO and Bartletts Test for independent variable are shown in
Table 5.9. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value is 0.81, exceeding the value of 0.60 (Kaiser
1970, 1974), and Bartletts Test of Sphericity (Bartlett 1954) is statistically significant
(P < 0.00), supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.

Table 5.9: KMO and Bartletts Test for independent variable


Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
df
Sig.

.805
15358.357
630
.000
83

In the principal components analysis (PCA), a total of 36 items listed under


independent variables were subjected to analysis. The results reveal the presence of
seven components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 19.3%, 14.5%, 12.6%,
10.5%, 7.0%, 4.1%, and 2.9% of the variance, respectively, as shown in Table 5.10.
An inspection of the scree plot (Figure 5.8) revealed a clear break after the sixth
component. Furthermore, the Parallel Analysis showed only six components with
eigenvalues exceeding the corresponding criterion values for a randomly generated
data matrix of the same size of data (36 items 480 respondents). Therefore, six
components are accepted as appropriate factors in this study. These findings are
shown in Table 5.11 and Table 5.12.

Scree Plot

Eigenvalue

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Component Number

Figure 5.8: Screen plot between eigenvalue and number of factors


84

Table 5.10: Total variance explained for independent variables

Component

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

Initial Eigenvalues
% of
Cumulative
Total Variance
%
6.948
19.301
19.301
5.345
14.848
34.149
4.542
12.618
46.767
3.790
10.529
57.296
2.521
7.004
64.300
1.491
4.142
68.442
1.044
2.901
71.344
.954
2.651
73.994
.904
2.510
76.504
.775
2.151
78.656
.748
2.077
80.732
.668
1.856
82.588
.631
1.752
84.339
.574
1.596
85.935
.540
1.499
87.434
.521
1.447
88.881
.481
1.336
90.217
.460
1.278
91.495
.403
1.121
92.615
.359
.997
93.612
.342
.950
94.562
.274
.761
95.324
.244
.677
96.001
.220
.610
96.611
.180
.499
97.109
.165
.457
97.567
.146
.406
97.973
.128
.356
98.329
.117
.325
98.655
.100
.278
98.933
.093
.258
99.190
.080
.221
99.412
.063
.176
99.587
.055
.152
99.740
.053
.148
99.888
.040
.112
100.000

Extraction Sums of Squared


Loadings
% of
Cumulative
Total
Variance
%
6.948
19.301
19.301
5.345
14.848
34.149
4.542
12.618
46.767
3.790
10.529
57.296
2.521
7.004
64.300
1.491
4.142
68.442
1.044
2.901
71.344

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

85

Table 5.11: Output from parallel analysis


Number of variables: 36
Number of subjects: 480
Number of replications: 100 (specify)
Eigenvalue #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

Random Eigenvalue

Standard Dev

1.5541
1.4855
1.4341
1.3931
1.3514
1.3160
1.2819
1.2506
1.2219
1.1912
1.1634
1.1380
1.1120
1.0854
1.0625
1.0403
1.0156
0.9910
0.9663
0.9446
0.9214
0.8980
0.8745
0.8516
0.8312
0.8091
0.7862
0.7666
0.7441
0.7207
0.6970
0.6740
0.6475
0.6226
0.5963
0.5604

.0391
.0277
.0260
.0243
.0201
.0185
.0172
.0185
.0173
.0169
.0142
.0166
.0146
.0146
.0129
.0138
.0141
.0137
.0111
.0116
.0136
.0125
.0141
.0144
.0141
.0143
.0133
.0140
.0120
.0123
.0134
.0144
.0169
.0153
.0157
.0214

Monte Carlo PCA for Parallel Analysis

Table 5.12: Comparison of eigenvalue from PCA and criterion values from
parallel analysis
Component
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Actual Eigenvalue
from PCA
6.948
5.345
4.542
3.790
2.521
1.491
1.044

Criterion value from


Parallel Analysis
1.5541
1.4855
1.4341
1.3931
1.3514
1.3160
1.2819

Decision
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Reject

86

Table 5.13: Rotation component matrix result for independent variables

F1
F5
F8
F4
F7
F3
F6
F2
D4
D3
D2
D5
D1
P7
P5
P4
P2
P1
P6
P8
P3
I1
I2
I5
I4
I3
V5
V4
V1
V2
V3
C2
C3
C5
C1
C4

I usually rely on my family members' opinion


I usually rely on my peers' idea
My teachers' recommendations are vital
My friends' perceptions towards the HEI are important
I usually rely on my teachers' view
I usually rely on my friends' advice
My peers' suggestions are vital
My familys view on the HEI is important
Provide students with a number of specialized
programmes to suit their needs
Provide students flexibility in selecting courses/subjects
during their study
Provide a wide range of courses for students to select
from
Offer degrees with reasonable completion periods of
study
Have reasonable entry requirements for its programmes
Provide students with a safe condition for study
Provide students with all the necessary resources that are
required for their education
Provide students with an expected social life on campus
Provide students with an environment that is conductive
to learning
Be situated in an ideal location
Provide students with a clean study environment
Have exceptional quality of faculty members
Provide students with great recreation and other facilities
Provide students with information regarding application
processes
Make information easily available to students from time
to time
Provide students with information regarding postgraduate studies
Provide students with information regarding their area of
study
Provide students with information regarding career
opportunities
Well recognized by respected industries
Well recognized by professional bodies
Well known for the reputation
Well known for their academic value
Well recognized by other academic institutions
Makes financial aid available to its students
Make scholarships available to its students
Make accommodation available to its students at
reasonable cost
Provide education at a reasonable cost
Make flexible payment of fee to its students

1
.932
.909
.897
.891
.880
.873
.862
.647

Component
3
4

.785
.776
.753
.618
.597
.873
.870
.837
.809
.784
.645
.622
.394
.949
.933
.901
.888
.813
.743
.740
.663
.442
.328
.787
.731
.407
.349
.329

87

A complete rotation component matrix result for independent variables is


shown in Table 5.13. Only items with a factor loading value greater than 0.30 were
considered. Based on the results, there are six identified factors as follows:

Component
1
2
3
4
5
6

Factor
People (Family, Friends, Peers and Teachers)
Degree (Content and Structure)
Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources
Institutional Information
Value of Education
Cost of Education

Factor 1 includes I usually rely on my family members opinion, I usually


rely on my peers idea, My teachers recommendations are vital, My friends
perceptions towards the HEI are important, I usually rely on my teachers view, I
usually rely on my friends advice, My peers suggestions are vital, and My
family views on the HEI are important. All the proposed eight items are categorized
under the independent variable called People (family, friends, peers, and teachers).

Factor 2 contains four items, they are Provide students with a number of
specialized programmes to suit their needs, Provide students flexibility in selecting
courses/subjects during their study, Provide a wide range of courses for students to
select from, and Offer degrees with reasonable completion periods of study. These
items fall into the independent variable named Degree (Content and Structure).
Nonetheless, there are five items under this variable in the instrument. Have
reasonable entry requirements for its programmes was not included as its factor
loading was less than 0.60.

88

There are seven items in Factor 3, namely, Physical Aspects, Facilities and
Resources. It consists of Provide students with a safe condition for study, Provide
students with all the necessary resources that are required for their education,
Provide students with an expected social life on campus, Provide students with an
environment that is conducive to learning, Be situated in an ideal location,
Provide students with a clean study environment, and Have exceptional quality of
faculty members.

Factor 4 comprises Provide students with information regarding application


processes, Make information easily available to students from time to time,
Provide students with information regarding post-graduate studies, Provide
students with information regarding their area of study, and Provide students with
information regarding career opportunities. This factor is categorized as
Institutional Information. All items within this variable have relatively high loading
value compared to other variables, with above 0.80.

Items such as Well recognized by respected industries, Well recognized by


professional bodies, and Well known for the reputation are included in factor 5,
which is classified as Value of Education. Factor 6 consists of Make financial aid
available to its students and Make scholarships available to its students. These two
items are categorized under the variable of Cost of Education in this study.

In general, the overall results of factor analysis for the independent variables is
reasonable, and supports the proposed questionnaire. The identified six factors
accounted for 68.44% of the total variance explained. Thus, this finding revealed an
acceptable result, as all the proposed items of the independent variables in the

89

instrument are valid; it means the measurement measured what it is supposed to


measure in this study.

5.6.2

Dependent Variables

The results of the KMO and Bartletts Test for independent variable are shown in
Table 5.14. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value is 0.75, exceeding the minimum value of
0.60 (Kaiser 1970, 1974), and Bartletts Test of Sphericity (Bartlett 1954) reached
statistically significant, supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.

Table 5.14: KMO and Bartletts Test for dependent variable


Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
df
Sig.

.750
1282.916
15
.000

In the principal components analysis (PCA), a total of six items listed under
dependent variable were subjected to analysis. Results revealed only the components
with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 54.2% of the variance; these are shown in
Table 5.15. Furthermore, an inspection of the scree plot shown in Figure 5.9 revealed
a clear break after the first component. A complete component matrix result for
dependent variables is shown in Table 5.16. The results clearly indicate that only one
factor was measured from the items in the dependent variable, which is Intention to
study at a HEI. This factor comprises five items comprising The likelihood to
further my studies at HEI is high, I am willing to spend for studying in a HEI, I
will say favourable things about the HEI I chose, I am willing to pay at a high rate
for the HEI I choose, and I have a strong interest to pursue my studies at a HEI

90

Table 5.15: Total variance explained for items in dependent variable

Component

Extraction Sums of Squared


Loadings

Initial Eigenvalues
% of
Cumulative
Variance
%
54.229
54.229
16.357
70.587
12.606
83.193
8.635
91.828
5.387
97.215
2.785
100.000

Total
3.254
.981
.756
.518
.323
.167

1
2
3
4
5
6

% of
Cumulative
Total Variance
%
3.254
54.229
54.229

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 5.16: Component matrix result for dependent variable


Component
1
.876
.822
.809
.696
.696

The likelihood to further my study at HEI is high


I am willing to spend for studying in a HEI
I will say favourable things about the HEI I chose
I am willing to pay at a high rate for the HEI I choose
I have a strong interest to pursue my studies at a HEI

Scree Plot

Eigenvalue

0
1

Component Number

Figure 5.9: Screen plot for items in dependent variable


91

In conclusion, the measureable items performed in this study reflect the


validity of the instruments, as well as the defined variables. Hence, this instrument is
acceptable to measure the population as the proposed concepts are aligned with the
objective in this research.

5.7

Reliability Test

Reliability is concerned with estimates of the degree to which a measurement is free


of random or unstable error (Donald and Pamela, 2003). Besides, the reliability of a
measure indicates the extent to which it is without bias (error free) and, hence, ensures
consistent measurement across time and across the various items in the instruments.
The reliability of the scales instrument employed in this study was investigated
through the Cronbachs alpha coefficient test.

The reliability of a measure is an indication of the stability and consistency of


the extent that the instrument measures the concept and helps to assess the goodness
of a measure (Sekaran, 2003). Briefly, reliability tests show how consistently a
measuring instrument measures a particular concept.

There are two frequently used indicators of a scales reliability in research;


they are the test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Test-retest reliability is
concerned with the reliability coefficient obtained with a repetition of the same
measure on a second occasion (Sekaran, 2003). Whereas the internal consistency
refers to the degree to which the items that make up the scale are all measuring the
same underlying attribute (Pallan, 2003).

92

In this study, Cronbachs alpha coefficient was used to measure the internal
consistency of the scales employed in this survey. The Cronbachs alpha value for
each variable is shown in Table 5.17.

Table 5.17: Cronbachs alpha value of variables

Variable
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
DV

Cost of Education
Degree (Content and Structure)
Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources
Value of Education
Institutional Information
People (Family, Friends, Peers and Teachers)
Intention to study at a HEI

Number
of item
5
5
8
5
5
8
6

Cronbachs
alpha Value
0.65
0.80
0.88
0.87
0.93
0.95
0.82

Table 5.17 shows that all the variables except the cost of education revealed
Cronbachs alpha Values greater than 0.80. As Nunnally (1978) and DeVellis (2003)
recommend a minimum level of 0.70, the scale of the six variables can be considered
as having high reliability. Also, the Cronbachs alpha values are dependent on the
number of items. Pallant (2007) cited that when there are a small number of items in
the scale, for instance fewer than ten items, it is common to find low Cronbachs
alpha values (i.e. 0.50).

The results show that those items under the variable of cost of education
contribute a Cronbachs alpha value of 0.65, which is lower than the minimum level
of 0.70. In this case, it is more appropriate to report the mean inter-item correlation
for the items within the variable, see Table 5.18.

Briggs and Cheek (1986) recommend an optimal range for the inter-item
correlation of 0.20 to 0.40. Accordingly, half of the mean value of items within the
93

variable fall within this optimal range. Additionally, a minimum Cronbachs alpha
value cut-off point of 0.60 is common in social-science research (Cohen, 1988). As a
result, the scale of this variable is acceptable to be considered as reliable in this study.

Table 5.18: Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for variable: Cost of Education

Provide education at
a reasonable cost
Make financial aids
available to its
students
Make scholarships
available to its
students
Make flexible
payment of fee to its
students
Make
accommodation
available to its
students at
reasonable cost

Make
scholarships
available to its
students

Make
flexible
payment
of fee to
its
students

Make
accommodation
available to its
students at
reasonable cost

.215

.195

.125

.258

.215

1.000

.472

.242

.212

.195

.472

1.000

.360

.212

.125

.242

.360

1.000

.435

.258

.212

.212

.435

1.000

Provide
education
at a
reasonable
cost

Make
financial aids
available to its
students

1.000

In conclusion, the findings of both the validity and the reliability tests support
the appropriateness of the instrument used throughout this study. In other words, the
items in the variables are valid and reliable to measure the concept that they are
supposed to measure. Therefore, the outcome of the instrument is suitable for a higher
level of analyses such as inferential and differential analysis.

94

5.8

Correlation Analysis

In this section, Pearsons correlation is used to explore the relationship between the
independent variables (IVs) and the dependent variable (DV). Correlation coefficients
are able to provide a numerical summary of the direction and the strength of the linear
relationship between the IVs and the DV. Pearsons correlation coefficients (r) range
from -1 to +1 and the sign in front indicates whether there is a positive or negative
correlation. The size of the absolute value provides information on the strength of the
relationship (Pallant, 2007). The findings of correlations between the independent
variables and the dependent variable are summarized in Table 5.19.

Table 5.19: The correlations between the independent variables and the dependent
variable (N =480)

Cost of education, IV1

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Degree (content and structure), IV2
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Physical aspects, facilities and resources, IV3
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Value of education, IV4
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Institutional information, IV5
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
People (Family, friends, peers and teachers, IV6 Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Intention to
study, DV
0.11**
0.02
0.20**
0.00
0.09**
0.04
0.18**
0.00
0.10**
0.03
0.16**
0.00

Cost of education (IV1)


There is a significant, weak and positive correlation between the Cost of Education
and the Intention to Study at a Higher Educational Institution (r = 0.11, p < .01). This
correlation shows that the more reasonable the cost of education offered by a higher

95

educational institute, the higher the students intention to further their study at the
institute.

Degree (Content and Structure) (IV2)


Similar to the cost of education, there is a significant, weak and positive correlation
between the Degree (Content and Structure and the Intention to Study at a Higher
Educational Institution (r = 0.20, p < .01). This correlation indicates that a higher
educational institute that is able to provide students with a wide range of courses and
more specialist programmes will attract more students intention to further their study
at the institute.

Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources (IV3)


There is a significant, weak and positive correlation between the Physical Aspects,
Facilities and Resources and the Intention to Study at a Higher Educational Institution
(r = 0.09, p < .01). This correlation reveals that the better the physical aspects and
facilities provided by a higher educational institute to its students the more able it is to
retain more students intention to study at the institute.

Value of Education (IV4)


There is a significant, weak and positive correlation between the Value of Education
and the Intention to Study at a Higher Educational Institution (r = 0.18, p < .01). This
correlation shows that the higher the possibility that a higher educational institute has
a good reputation and ability to deliver high academic value in their programme, the
higher the students intention to continue their study at the institute.

96

Institutional Information (IV5)


The correlation between the Institutional Information and the Intention to Study at a
Higher Educational Institution is significant, weak and positive (r = 0.10, p < .01).
This correlation indicates that the higher the ability of a higher educational institute to
provide comprehensive and relevant information regarding study, the students are
more likely to further their study at the institute.

People (Family, Friends and Peers and Teachers) (IV6)


There is a significant, weak and positive correlation between the People (Family,
Friends and Peer) and the Intention to Study at a Higher Educational Institution (r =
0.16, p < .01). This correlation shows that the higher the influence of the respondents
significant people such as family members, friends, peers and teachers, the higher the
students intention to continue their study at the institute.

5.9

Multiple Regression Analysis

In this section, a multiple regression analysis was performed to determine the


predictor and its contribution towards the criterion. In other words, it is to find out the
prediction of a single dependent continuous variable from a group of independent
variables.

In order to ensure the appropriateness of the outputs from the regression


analysis, the assumptions of multiple regression must comply. In this case, the
normality,

linearity,

homoscedasticity,

multicollinearity,

autocorrelation,

and

multivariate outlier, all refer to the various aspects of the distribution of scores and the
nature of the underlying relationship between the variables. These assumptions were

97

checked by inspecting the Normal Probability Plot (P-P) of the Regression Standard
Residual, Scatter plot, and other tests that complement the regression analysis.
According to the histogram of the intention to study at a higher educational institution
(see Appendix II), the data of the dependent variable is normally distributed. Hence,
it ensures the normality of the sample. In addition, sample normality is further
demonstrated by a Normal P-P of the Regression Standard Residual, as shown in
Figure 5.10.

Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual

Dependent Variable: Intention to Study at a Higher Educational Institution


(HEI)

Expected Cum Prob

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Observed Cum Prob

Figure 5.10: Normal P-P Plot of regression standardized residual for dependent
variable

In the Normal P-P plot, points are laid in a reasonably straight diagonal line
from bottom left to top right. It indicates no major deviation from normality.

98

On the other hand, from the scatted plot of residuals in Figure 5.11, the
residuals are roughly rectangularly distributed, with most of the scores concentrated in
the centre along the 0 axes. (red line). The findings indicate that the predictors
(independent variables) are linearly related to the residual of the criterion (dependent
variable). Therefore, the homoscedasticity of the sample is ensured. The findings
show that no outliers are detected as no score has a standardized residual of more than
3.3 or less than -3.3.

Scatterplot

Regression Standardized Residual

Dependent Variable: Intention to Study at a Higher Educational Institution


(HEI)

-2

-4
-3

-2

-1

Regression Standardized Predicted Value

Figure 5.11: The scatter plot of residuals observed value and predicted value

In addition, in the collinearity statistic tests all three predictors have tolerance
values greater than 0.10, and variance inflection factor, (VIF) values less than 10. It
reveals that there is no multicollinearity between the variables. The Durbin-Watson
value in this analysis is 1.54, which falls in the range of 1.5 to 2.5, indicating that
99

there is no autocorrelation in the residual. The Mahalanobis adjustment is performed


to encounter the potential multivariate outliers in the computed data. In conclusion, all
the assumptions were complied with throughout the regression analysis. Hence, the
appropriateness of these findings is ensured.

After all the assumptions were complied with, the multiple regression analysis
was carried out. The results of the multiple regression are shown in Table 5.20 to
Table 5.22.

Table 5.20: Multiple correlation of independent variables with dependent variable


Model Summaryd
Change Statistics
Model
1
2
3

R
.199(a)
.245(b)
.281(c)

R Square
.040
.060
.079

Adjusted
R Square
.038
.056
.073

Std. Error of
the Estimate
.52625
.52120
.51646

R Square
Change
.040
.020
.019

F Change
19.684
10.314
9.788

df1
1
1
1

df2
478
477
476

Sig. F DurbinChange Watson


.000
.001
.002 1.544

a. Predictors: (Constant), Degree (Content and Structure)


b. Predictors: (Constant), Degree (Content and Structure), People (Family, Friends, Peers and
Teachers)
c. Predictors: (Constant), Degree (Content and Structure), People (Family, Friends, Peers and
Teachers), Cost of Education
d. Dependent Variable: Intention to Study at a Higher Educational Institution (HEI)

There are multiple correlations (R =.28) of three significant predictors with the
criterion (dependent variable), as shown in Table 5.22. From the model, factors that
influence students intention to study at a HEI are degree (content and structure),
people (family, friends, peers and teachers), and cost of education. The three factors
have a significant effect size that explains 7.90 percent of the variability towards the
intention to study at a HEI. The adjusted R2 indicates that in the population, the three
factors account for 7.30% of the variance in respondents intention to study at a HEI.

100

A total of 92.70% of the variance of the criterion is unaccounted for. Table 5.21
reveals this regression is significant (F3, 476 = 13.58, p < .01).
Table 5.21: Significances of Independent variables
ANOVAd
Model
3

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

Sig.

Regression

10.864

3.621

13.576

.000(c)

Residual

126.966

476

.267

Total

137.830

479

c. Predictors: (Constant), Degree (Content and Structure), People (Family, Friends, Peers and
Teachers), Cost of Education
d. Dependent Variable: Intention to Study at a Higher Educational Institution (HEI)

Table 5.22: Regression coefficients and significance of independent variables


Coefficientsa

Model
3

(Constant)
Cost of Education
Degree (Content and Structure)
Physical Aspects, Facilities and
Resources
Value of Education
Institutional Information
People (Family, Friends, Peers and
Teachers)

Unstandardized
Coefficients
Std.
B
Error
1.998
.377
.178
.082

Standardized
Coefficients

Collinearity
Statistics
Sig.
.000
.031

Tolerance

VIF

.136

t
5.296
2.160

.492

2.032

Beta

.192

.075

.196

2.562

.011

.331

3.018

.052

.064

.037

.802

.423

.933

1.071

-.007
.008

.066
.060

-.009
.008

-.108
.140

.914
.889

.303
.641

3.297
1.560

.107

.034

.145

3.192

.002

.947

1.056

a. Dependent Variable: Intention to Study at a Higher Educational Institution (HEI)

Table 5.22 indicates that only three significant predictors out of six
independent variables are positively related to the criterion in the regression. They are
degree (content and structure), IV2 (t = 4.40, p <.01), People (Family, Friends, Peers
and Teachers), IV6 (t = 3.42, p <.01), and Cost of Education, IV1 (t = 1.81, p <.05).

101

The degree (content and structure) has the highest regression coefficient, 0.19
(95% CI = 0.11 to 0.28), followed by people (family, friends, peers and teachers),
0.18 (95% CI = 0.05 to 0.18), and cost of education, 0.11 (95% CI = 0.07 to 0.30).
[Confidence level, CI please refer to Appendix III] Effects from other predictors are
insignificant in this set of combinations, and those factors are not included in the
multiple regression equation. Therefore the multiple regression equation is as follows:

DV = 2.00 + 0.18 IV1 + 0.19 IV2 + 0.11 IV6


Where,
DV = Intention to study at a HEI.
IV1 = Cost of Education
IV2 = Degree (Content and Structure)
IV6 = People (Family, Friends, Peers and Teachers)

The beta value indicates that one unit increase in degree (content and
structure) will result in an increase in the respondents intention to study by 0.19
units. If the influences from significant people such as family, friends, peers and
teachers increases by one unit, the respondents intention to study will increase by
0.11 units. If the reasonability of cost of education increases by one unit, respondents
intention to study will increase by 0.19 units. The relationship and implications are
further discussed in Chapter 6.

102

5.10

Independent Sample t-test

An independent sample t-test was carried out to identify the differences between
respondents gender on the perceived importance of factors that influence their study
intention towards a HEI. The results of the independent sample t-test are shown in
Table 5.23.

Table 5.23: Independent sample t-test result for male and female respondent towards
proposed variables

Variable

Male
( N = 202)

Female
( N = 278)

P < .05

Cost of Education

Mean
S.D.

3.56
0.41

3.66
0.40

-2.83

Sig

Degree (Content and Structure)

Mean
S.D.

3.64
0.51

3.58
0.57

1.11

NS

Physical Aspects, Facilities


and Resources

Mean
S.D.

3.79
0.40

3.87
0.36

-2.46

Sig

Value of Education

Mean
S.D.

3.39
0.59

3.48
0.69

-1.67

Sig

Institutional Information

Mean
S.D.

3.76
0.51

3.72
0.48

-0.75

NS

People (Family, Friends, Peers


and Teachers)

Mean
S.D.

3.57
0.65

3.68
0.78

-1.69

NS

Intention to Study

Mean
S.D.

3.79
0.51

4.03
0.53

-4.77

Sig

* Note: S.D. = Standard Deviation, Sig = Significant, NS = Not Significant

According to Table 5.23, four out of seven variables are significantly different
between the gender of the respondents. These variables are cost of education,
physical aspects, facilities and resources, value of education, and intention to study.
The other three variables degree (content and structure), institutional information,

103

and people (family, friends, peers, and teachers) remain insignificant. Furthermore,
the findings show that all variables have a small effect size.

In terms of cost of education, female respondents exhibit a higher mean score


than male respondents. This indicates that female students place more importance on
the cost of education in their HEI choice compared to male students. Furthermore, the
results reveal similar outcomes to the cost of education for three other variables:
physical aspects, facilities and resources, value of education, and intention to study.
Female students tend to be more concerned with these attributes, which affect their
HEI selection. The result is supported by findings from previous studies; females are
more comprehensive in evaluating information and often consider more attributes
than males in their decision making (Meyers-Levy et al., 1991). Moreover, the
findings show that female students have a relatively high willingness to further their
study to tertiary level. The further discussions are presented in Chapter 6.

5.11

One-way Analysis of Variance (One-way ANOVA)

In this study, One-way ANOVA was used to investigate the significant difference
between respondents academic background on perceived importance of factors that
influence their study intention towards a HEI. The use of One-way ANOVA is to
compare the variance between the different groups of respondents academic
background with the variability within each of the groups (analysis of variance).

In general, One-way ANOVA shows whether or not the means of the various
groups are significantly different from one another, as indicated by the F statistical
value. The F value shows whether two sample variances differ from each other or if
104

they are from the same population. The F distribution is a probability distribution of
sample variances and the family of distributions changes with the changes in sample
size. In order words, the F value is the ratio of the variance between groups divided by
the variance within groups. Therefore, the greater the likelihood of between-group
variance compared with within-group variance, the greater the probability that the
means of the groups will be different (Sekaran et al., 2000).

In brief, One-way ANOVA was performed through two steps. In the first step
the significance of F value was determined. The F values were obtained from overall
ANOVA. The second step was the multiple comparisons between groups. However,
these comparisons were only applicable to those variables that were found to have a
significant difference in overall ANOVA; those variables with a significant F value.
In this section, the Scheffe test was used to compare the significant difference
between respondents academic background; STPM/Form Six, GCE A-Level, and
L.O.U. (comprising all other courses). The mean difference between groups indicated
whether groups were statistically significantly different from one another. In addition,
the Scheffe test was able to identify the strength of those differences. The results for
the F value and effect size for each variable are presented in Table 5.24; the
comparison between groups is shown in Table 5.25.
Table 5.24: One-way ANOVA, F values and effect size
Variable

F
Cost of Education
22.31
Degree (Content and Structure)
151.10
Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources
6.01
Value of Education
49.93
Institutional Information
2.01
People (Family, Friends, Peers and Teachers)
14.49
Intention to Study
1.79
* Note: Sig = Significant, NS = Not Significant

P < .05
Sig
Sig
Sig
Sig
NS
Sig
NS

105

Table 5.25: One-way ANOVA, comparison between groups

Variable
Cost of Education

Group
Respondents Respondents
Qualification Qualification
(I)
(J)
STPM
GCE A-Level
STPM
L.O.U.
GCE A-Level
L.O.U.

Mean
Difference
(I-J)
0.16
0.29
0.12

P < .05
Sig
Sig
Sig

Degree (Content and Structure)

STPM
STPM
GCE A-Level

GCE A-Level
L.O.U.
L.O.U.

-0.82
-0.54
0.29

Sig
Sig
Sig

Physical Aspects, Facilities and


Resources

STPM
STPM
GCE A-Level

GCE A-Level
L.O.U.
L.O.U.

-0.12
0.01
0.13

Sig
NS
Sig

Value of Education

STPM
STPM
GCE A-Level

GCE A-Level
L.O.U.
L.O.U.

-0.65
-0.23
0.43

Sig
Sig
Sig

Institutional Information

STPM
STPM
GCE A-Level

GCE A-Level
L.O.U.
L.O.U.

-0.06
0.06
0.11

NS
NS
NS

People (Family, Friends, Peers


and Teachers)

STPM
STPM
GCE A-Level

GCE A-Level
L.O.U.
L.O.U.

-0.31
-0.41
-0.10

Sig
Sig
NS

Intention to Study

STPM
STPM
GCE A-Level

GCE A-Level
L.O.U.
L.O.U.

-0.01
0.09
0.10

NS
NS
NS

* Note:

L.O.U. = Local Matriculation, Overseas Pre-U, University Foundation


Programme, Sig = Significant, NS = Not Significant

The results revealed that five out of seven variables are significantly different
among the respondents academic background. These variables are cost of education,
degree (content and structure), physical aspects, facilities and resources, value of
education, and people (family, friends, peers and teachers). The other two variables
remained insignificant. In terms of their effect size, degree (content and structure) and
value of education have a large effect size, followed by a moderate effect size for cost

106

of education and people (family, friends, peers and teachers). The variable which has
the significant smallest effect size is physical aspects, facilities and resources.

Further, from the results of group comparisons, students with STPM/Form six
backgrounds are more concerned with the cost of education than students with GCE
A-Level backgrounds and L.O.U.. Nevertheless, within the same variable, students
with GCE A-Level place a higher importance on the cost of education compared to
students with L.O.U. academic backgrounds. The detail of the comparison is
summarized in Table 5.26, and the further discussion is presented in Chapter 6.

Table 5.26: Findings from comparison of groups


Variable
Cost of Education

Significant Difference from


Comparison of Groups
Students with STPM qualification place highest
importance, followed by students with GCE ALevel, and students with L.O.U. qualifications

Degree (Content and Structure)

STPM > GCE A-Level > L.O.U.


.
Students with GCE A-Level qualification place
highest importance, followed by students with
L.O.U. qualifications, and students with STPM
qualification.

GCE A-Level > L.O.U. > STPM

Physical Aspects, Facilities and Students with GCE A-Level qualification place
Resources
higher importance than students with STPM and
L.O.U. qualification. No significant difference
found between students with STPM and L.O.U.
qualification.

GCE A-Level > STPM


GCE A-Level > L.O.U.

107

Variable
Value of Education

Significant Difference from


Comparison of Groups
Students with GCE A-Level qualification place
highest importance, followed by students with
L.O.U. qualifications, and students with STPM
qualification.

GCE A-Level > L.O.U. > STPM

People (Family, Friends, Peers Students with GCE A-Level and L.O.U.
and Teachers)
qualifications place higher importance than
students with STPM qualification.

5.12

GCE A-Level > STPM


L.O.U. > STPM

Conclusion of the Chapter

All the performed analyses were extensively discussed throughout this chapter.
Normality tests indicate that the sample is normally distributed. The factor analysis
and Cronbachs alpha coefficient test confirm the validity and reliability of the
instrument employed in the present study. Correlation analysis and multiple linear
regression were carried out to establish the relationships between IVs and DV. Mean
Difference analyses were performed to identify the significant differences between the
respondents gender as well as academic background towards the importance placed
on a HEI. The further discussions of those findings are presented in Chapter 6.

108

CHAPTER

Discussion and Conclusion


6.1 Introduction
6.2 Discussion of Results
6.2.1 Normality Tests
6.2.2 Descriptive Analysis
6.2.3 Validity and Reliability Test
6.2.4 Pearsons Correlation
6.2.5 Multiple Regression
6.2.6 Independent Sample t-Test
6.2.7 One-Way ANOVA
6.3 Conclusion
6.4 Implications
6.5 Recommendations
6.6 Contribution of the Study
6.7 Suggestion for Future Research
6.8 Conclusion of the Chapter

Chapter 1
Introduction

Chapter 2
Literature Review

Chapter 3
Conceptual Model

Chapter 4
Research Methodology

Chapter 5
Data Analysis and
Findings

Chapter 6
Discussion and
Conclusion

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.7
6.8

Introduction
Discussion of Results
Conclusion
Implications
Recommendations
Contribution of the Study
Suggestion for Future Research
Conclusion of the Chapter

CHAPTER 6
6.1

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Introduction

This chapter presents in depth discussions on the findings obtained from Chapter 5.
The conclusion of the study discusses whether the findings support the proposed
hypotheses, answer the research questions, and achieve the research objectives.
Implications and recommendations are provided for HEI marketers to gain insights
into crafting their strategies for student recruitment. The contributions of the study are
discussed based on theoretical, methodological and practical approaches. Lastly,
suggestions for future research are presented in this chapter.

6.2

Discussion of Results

6.2.1

Normality Tests

According to the findings obtained from the analyses of sample normality, both
graphical and statistical results reflect the positive approach. Hence, the overall results
of the normality tests confirm that the sample used in this study is normally
distributed. This result reveals that the sample is well defined and the stratified
convenience sampling method is appropriate for the present study. Consequently, the
homoscedasticity of the sample is ensured and the sample is representative of the real
population. Thus, the findings of this study can be confidently generalized to the
population.

109

6.2.2

Descriptive Analysis

Comparison of Means
In the descriptive analysis of the means of all items for each variable, all items
revealed mean scores of more than 3.00 (Table 5.5). Responses to the items were
measured on a five-point Likert scale where 1 means Strongly Disagree and 5
means Strongly Agree. Hence, the findings show that the majority of the
respondents agreed with the importance of the proposed items. Therefore, these items
are significant to their decision making when choosing a HEI to attend.

The means of all computed items variables are more than 3.00 (Table 5.6).
The results indicate that, in general, most of the respondents agreed with the
importance of all the proposed variables as influencing their study intention towards a
HEI. In the comparison of means between variables, Physical aspects, facilities and
resources has the highest mean score, followed by institutional information. Cost
of education, Degree (content and structure) and People (family, friends, peers
and teachers) have similar means, which are about 3.60. Subsequently, value of
education has the lowest mean score compared to the others.

The findings reveal that students place more importance on the HEIs physical
aspects such as the location, conducive learning atmosphere, recreation and sports,
cleanliness, safe environment, campus social life, facilities, and quality faculty
members. In addition, students also place importance on the ability of the HEI to
provide relevant information. Information such as on-time application processes, area
of study of offered programmes, future job prospects and career opportunities, and
possibility of post-graduate studies upon the completion of the programme.

110

Students consider the value of education as being relatively of less importance


to them. The reputation of the HEI, recommendations from academic institutions,
professional bodies, and industries are of less consequence to Malaysian students in
the selection of a HEI. This finding contrasts with the earlier study by Krishnan and
Nurtjahja (2007); a study of evaluative criteria for selection of PHEIs in Malaysia. In
their research, they found that private universities students placed highest importance
on the variable of Recognition and reputation of the institution (with a mean score
of 3.73).

This phenomenon can be explained by the different samples used in the


respective studies. Krishnan and Nurtjahja (2007) defined their targeted sample as
students who were studying in private universities and colleges. Whereas, the targeted
sample of the present study is tudents who are attending pre-university programmes.
Specifically, this group of students has not made their decision on the selection of a
HEI; they are potential customers of HEIs instead of existing students of HEIs.

Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 2, the nature of education is closely related


to service. According to Hoffman (2006) and Lovelock (2007), because of the four
basic service characteristics (intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity and
perishability), an evaluation of a service can only take place when the service is
completely delivered, and the customer experiences the service instead of gaining
something from the service. Therefore, in the service industry, it is often found that
the customer perceives the value and importance of a service as different between the
before and after actual purchase. In other words, the perceived value of customers
alters over the service delivery process. In the previous study, students have chosen

111

PHEIs as their study destination; however, students in the present study have not
decided to attend either a public HEI or PHEI. It shows that students in the previous
study were more focused on PHEIs. Thus, those students will have a distinct
perceived importance of the HEI they choose compared to the students in this study.
The findings of the previous study are in line with the findings obtained from
differential analysis of the students academic background in this study. The further
discussion is presented in section 6.2.7.

The dependent variable, intention to study has a high computed mean value
of 3.93, which is higher than all the independent variables. This finding indicates that
respondents have a high interest in pursuing their tertiary education. Their intention to
continue their studies at a HEI in the near future is assumed. In sum, based on the
computed mean value for each variable, the proposed six factors in this study affect
the students intention to study at a HEI.

Ranking Order of Important Factors


According to Table 5.10, Malaysian students place the cost of education, physical
aspects, facilities and resources of a HEI, and the influences from significant people
(family, friends, peers and teachers) as the first three most important criteria that
concerns them in their further study decision. As a matter of fact, results show that
Malaysian students have a significantly different perception of their intention to study
at a HEI compared to other nations. Joseph and Joseph (1998, 2000) have carried out
two similar studies of ranking order in two different cultural frameworks, namely,
New Zealand and Indonesia. The comparisons of ranking order of importance for
three distinct nations are shown in Table 6.1

112

Table 6.1: Comparison of ranking order of importance for three distinct nations
Rank
1
2

New Zealand, Year 1998


(N = 216)
Value of Education
Degree (Content and
Structure)
Cost of Education

Indonesia, Year 2000


(N = 110)
Course and Career
Information**
Physical Aspect, Facilities
and Resources
Cost of Education

Malaysia, Year 2009


(N = 480)
Cost of Education

Physical Aspects,
Facilities and Resources
3
People (Family, Friends,
Peers and Teachers)
4
Physical Aspect, Facilities Degree (Content and
Degree (Content and
and Resources
Structure)
Structure)
5
General*
Value of Education
Value of Education
6
Institutional Information
N.A.
N.A.
Note: *Consists of institutional information and influences from significant people
(family, friends, peers and teachers)
**Includes influences from people (family, friends, peers and teachers)
N.A. = Not Applicable

The comparison shows that students from the different nations have distinctive
perceptions of the varying importance in their further study intention. Thus, HEI
marketing strategies will also vary from nation to nation. Some factors may be the
main focus in some countries while they may be of low significance in others.
Therefore, it is important to understand the psyche of students in the nation that
affects their intention to study at a particular HEI. In order words, there is no one
size fits most strategy for the education industry.

The perceived importance for Malaysian students is similar to Indonesian


students. The only difference is that cost of education ranked as the primary
concern for Malaysian students, whereas it was ranked number three by Indonesian
students. This is probably because Indonesia and Malaysia are located in the same
region. These two neighbouring countries often have similarities in their cultural

113

frameworks. It is not surprising that students from both these countries share some
common perceived importance factors that influence their study intention

Comparatively, Malaysian students are assumed to be more cost conscious


than other nations. Students are willing to enrol in a HEI that provides education at a
reasonable cost. Furthermore, students are likely to prefer a HEI that provides them
with financial aid. Despite this, however, the physical aspect, facilities and resources
of a HEI was ranked as the second most important by both Malaysian and Indonesian
students. It may be concluded that ASEAN students prefer a HEI if they foresee that
the HEI has the ability to provide adequate facilities and resources for them.

Malaysian students study intention is influenced by a group of significant


people, such as family members, friends, peers, teachers, counsellors, relatives, etc.
This result is consistent with the findings from previous studies; personnel influence
on Asian students choice of HEI (McMahon, 1992; Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002;
Pimpa, 2003, Chen and Zimitat, 2006). Studies found that the influences from
significant personnel are more persuasive to Asian students, and that it does play an
important role in students choice of HEI in the Asian context.

According to Table 6.1, in comparison with New Zealand students, Malaysian


students show little concern for the content and structure of the degree, and the value
of the education. This fact is further supported by the outcome of an earlier study.
David and Anne (2007) cited that non-Malaysian students typically selected a HEI as
an aid to procuring a new identity. They found that this group of students viewed HE
with the hope of expunging provincial outlooks. These students wanted new ways of
viewing the world, new habits of thinking and new skills and approaches. As a result,

114

New Zealand students placed greater importance on the value of education and the
degree (content and structure) obtained. They are much appreciative of the value and
the knowledge that can be gained from education. Thus, the appropriateness of the
reputation, organization, and content of degree is more significant to New Zealand
students compared to Malaysian students.

In summary, HEI authorities may use these findings regarding Malaysian


students perceived importance. In strategic planning, this finding may be useful in
managing the students priorities of the influencing factors. Ultimately, it helps to
achieve the goal of education that is beneficial to both HEIs and students.

6.2.3

Validity and Reliability Test

The validity and reliability of the instrument employed in this study were investigated
through factor analysis and Cronbachs alpha coefficient test, respectively. The results
exhibit that a total of six IVs are identified from a pool of 36 items, and only one DV,
which consists of six items. Generally, IVs and the DV in this study have high
Cronbachs alpha values, which are above 0.70, except the variable cost of
education (0.65). Nevertheless, this variable is still considered as reliable as the
majority of the mean values of items within this variable fall within the optimal range
for the inter-item correlation of 0.20 to 0.40. In conclusion, the validity and reliability
test ensure the appropriateness of this instrument. The instrument is reliable and valid
in measuring the concepts proposed in this study. Moreover, it proves that the
adaption and further modification of the instrument are applicable in the present
study.

115

6.2.4

Pearsons Correlation

According to Table 5.21, the results reveal that all independent variables (IV1 to IV6)
are weak (<0.30) and positively correlated with the dependent variable at the high
significance level p <.01. Hence, there is a significant relationship between each
independent variable (IV1 to IV6) and the dependent variable.

6.2.5

Multiple Regression

Based on the findings obtained from the multiple linear regression analysis in
Chapter 5, the multiple regression equation is as follows:

DV = 2.18 + 0.18 IV1 + 0.19 IV2 + 0.11 IV6


Where,
DV = Intention to study at a HEI.
IV1 = Cost of Education
IV2 = Degree (Content and Structure)
IV6 = People (Family, Friends, Peers and Teachers)

There are three significant predictors presented in this model. Content and structure of
degree offered by a HEI has the highest coefficient value meaning that the content and
the structure of the degree has the highest contribution level towards students
intention to study at a HEI. The second highest contribution predictor is cost of
education, followed by influence from significant people such as family members,
friends, peers and teachers. The remaining predictors are insignificant predictors in
the intention to study at a HEI. These silent predictors are physical aspects, facilities
and resources, value of education, and institutional information.

116

This finding is almost in line with the ranking order of students perceived
importance. Students ranked cost of education, physical aspects, facilities and
resources, people (family, friends, peers and teachers) and degree (content and
structure) as the four most important factors in the decision making of choosing a
HEI. The only difference is that the physical aspects, facilities and resources is the
silent predictor in the multiple regression analysis.

Based on the regression equation, the constant value is 2.00, which is greater
than zero. This means that the respondents have a strong predisposition to further their
study even without the stimulus from proposed important factors. Furthermore, this
constant value is higher than all the coefficient values of the three predictors. To a
certain extent, these predictors may only act as some encouragement to motivate
students in choosing a particular HEI.

Taking into account the findings of the Pearsons correlation and multiple
regression, the present study concludes that the proposed factors have a positive
relationship towards Malaysian students intention to study at a HEI. More
specifically, all the proposed factors appear to be important attributes in students HEI
selection. However, only three factors are the determinant attributes that distinguish
the intention to attend a particular HEI instead of others. For example, perhaps,
Malaysian students assume that if the HEI is able to offer certain programmes, the
HEI must have sufficient capabilities such as facilities, resources, and faculty
members to support the administration of those programmes. As a result, the physical
aspect of a HEI may not be a key attribute that students see as a significant difference
among competing alternatives.

117

In summary, there are three key determinant attributes that affect students
intention to study at a HEI. These attributes are cost of education, content and
structure of the degree, and influences from significant people such as family
members, friends, peers and teachers. Thus, the proposed hypothesis (H7) is rejected
due to some proposed predictors being insignificant in the multiple regression
analysis.

In conclusion, based on the results of the multiple regression, the first, second
and sixth hypothesis (H1, H2 and H6) are accepted, whereas the third, fourth and fifth
hypothesis (H3, H4 and H5) are rejected.

6.2.6

Independent Sample t-test

According to Table 5.25, four out of seven proposed variables are significantly
different between the gender of the respondents. These variables are cost of education,
physical aspects, facilities and resources, value of education, and intention to study.
The other three variables degree (content and structure), institutional information,
and people (family, friends, peers, and teachers) are not significantly different
between male and female students.

Generally, the mean difference shows that female students are more concerned
with these three important attributes than male students. Also, the findings reveal that
female students have a higher intention to further their study at a HEI than male
students. This result is consistent with earlier studies regarding the gender differences
in shopping behaviour (Meyers-Levy et al., 1991; Mansfield and Warwick, 2005).
Those studies indicated that females attempt to engage in effortful, itemized analysis
of all available information giving equal weight to information of attributes relevant
118

to self and others; whereas, males tend to rely on a single cue or a cue that is highly
available and particularly salient in the focal context. Hence, this could help explain
why female students take more consideration on these important attributes than male
students in the HEI context. Furthermore, the findings indicate that Malaysian female
students often engage in comprehensive processing of information, and exhaustive
evaluation of important attributes. Consequently, HEI marketers may take this finding
into consideration for designing and managing integrated marketing communications
(IMC) for potential students, especially female students.

6.2.7 One-Way ANOVA


According to Table 5.24, the results reveal that five out of seven variables are
significantly different between respondents academic backgrounds. These variables
are cost of education, degree (content and structure), physical aspects, facilities and
resources, value of education, and people (family, friends, peers and teachers). The
other two variables are not significantly different between students academic
backgrounds.

In the variable of cost of study, students with a STPM background present


higher mean values compared to students with A-levels and other academic
backgrounds. This shows that STPM students are more concerned with financial
consumption during their study compared to others. In addition, students with an Alevel background also have a higher mean value than students with other academic
backgrounds.

119

It is apparent that students with an A-level background view the content and
structure of the degree offered by a HEI as typical compared to students with the other
two different academic backgrounds. This finding indicates that A-level students are
more conscious of the availability and suitability of the offered courses by a HEI.
Moreover, students with other backgrounds also have a higher mean value than
students with STPM backgrounds.

In the variable of physical aspects, facilities and resources, students with Alevel background reveal a significantly higher mean value compared to students with
STPM and other academic backgrounds. This result indicates that A-level students
consider the facilities and physical aspects that a HEI could offer them as important.
Nonetheless, there is no significant difference between STPM students and other
academic background students in the perceived importance of a HEIs physical
aspects.

Furthermore, students with A-level background view the value of education as


more important compared to students from the other two academic backgrounds. This
output indicates that A-level students are more appreciative of the importance and
principles of quality education. Additionally, students with other backgrounds also
have a higher mean value than students with STPM backgrounds.

In conclusion, male and female students, and students with different academic
background place significantly different importance on the factors that influence
students intention to study at a higher educational institution. Hence, there is
sufficient evidence supporting the two hypotheses (H7 and H8). Thus, these
hypotheses are accepted in this study. The discussion of differential analyses is
summarized in Table 6. 2.
120

Table 6.2: Summary of findings from differential analyses


Variable
Cost of Education

Gender
Female students are
more cost conscious
than male students

Difference
Academic Background
STPM
students
place
highest
importance, followed by A-level, and
L.O.U., as follows:
STPM > GCE A-Level > L.O.U.

Degree (Content and


Structure)

No significant
difference between
male and female
students

A-level students place highest


importance, followed by L.O.U., and
STPM, as follows:
GCE A-Level > L.O.U. > STPM

Physical Aspects,
Facilities and Resources

Female students are


more concerned than
male students

A-level
students
place
more
importance than STPM and L.O.U..
No significant difference between
STPM and L.O.U.. As follows:
GCE A-Level > STPM
GCE A-Level > L.O.U.

Value of Education

Female students
appreciate the value
more than male
students

A-level students place highest


importance, followed by L.O.U., and
STPM, as follows:
GCE A-Level > L.O.U. > STPM

Institutional Information

People (Family, Friends,


Peers and Teachers)

No significant
difference between
male and female
students
No significant
difference between
male and female
students

No Significant difference between


students from different academic
background
A-level and L.O.U. students place
more importance than STPM students.
No significant difference between Alevel and L.O.U.. As follows:
GCE A-Level > STPM
L.O.U. > STPM

Intention to Study

Female students have


higher intention than
males

No Significant difference between


students from different academic
background

121

6.3

Conclusion

According to the findings from the inferential analyses, all proposed IVs are
significant and positively correlated to the DV. Therefore, the first to sixth proposed
hypotheses (H1 to H6) in this study are accepted. In addition, the eighth and ninth
proposed hypotheses (H7 and H8) are also accepted. This statement is supported by
the findings of the present study that reveal a significant difference between students
gender and academic backgrounds on their perceived important factors for selecting a
HEI. The overall result of the hypotheses testing is presented in Table 6.3.

To answer the first research question (Q1), the significant factors influencing
students intention to study at a HEI are cost of education, degree (content and
structure), and people (family, friends, peers, and teachers). The factor of degree
(content and structure) has the highest impact on students intention to study at a HEI,
followed by cost of study, and people (family, friends, peers, and teachers).

To answer the second research question (Q2), male and female students do
differ significantly in the selection criteria that they consider important when
choosing a HEI. Male and female students significantly differ in the following factors:
cost of education, physical aspects, facilities and resources, and value of education. In
general, female students place higher weight on these important factors. Additionally,
female students reveal that they have a higher study intention than male students.
Also, students from different academic backgrounds such as STPM, GCE A-level,
and other academic backgrounds significantly differ in the selection criteria they
consider important when choosing a HEI. These factors are cost of education, degree
(content and structure), physical aspects, facilities and resources, value of education,
and people (family, friends, peers and teachers). Generally, students from different

122

academic backgrounds tend to have distinctive opinions concerning the important


factors affecting their choice of HEI.

In conclusion, the present study is successful in testing the proposed


hypotheses. Moreover, the research questions are answered as well as achieving the
objectives of this study. In other words, this study is complete, and the findings of the
study could be beneficial to both students (customers), and institutions (service
providers).

Table 6.3: Overall result of hypotheses testing


Hypothesis
The cost of education is a significant factor that influences
students intention to study at a HEI

Result
Accepted

H2

The content and structure of degree is a significant factor


that influences students intention to study at a HEI

Accepted

H3

The physical aspects, facilities and resources of an


institution are a significant factor that influences students
intention to study at a HEI

Rejected

H4

The value of education is a significant factor that


influences students intention to study at a HEI

Rejected

H5

The institutional information is a significant factor that


influences students intention to study at a HEI

Rejected

H6

The significant people (family, friends, peers and teachers)


is a significant factor that influences students intention to
study at a HEI

Accepted

H7

Male and female students will differ in the importance


placed on the factors that influence students intention to
study at a higher educational institution.

Accepted

H8

Students with different academic background will differ in


the importance placed on the factors that influence
students intention to study at a higher educational
institution.

Accepted

H1

123

6.4

Implications

Through this study, Malaysian students have shown the proposed variables that
influence their intention to study at a HEI. As a result, it will be interesting to further
investigate the impact of those variables on their study intention. Moreover, it may
create a complete picture if the differences among students gender and academic
backgrounds were defined. Therefore, findings from the analyses in this study are
integrated in order to provide appropriate, meaningful, and comprehensive
implications to HEI marketers as well as other researchers. The overall implications
of this study are presented in Table 6.4.

According to Table 6.4, there are six important factors that influence students
in their HEI choice. In essence, it is suggested that HEI marketers focus more
attention on the determinant factors such as cost of education, influences from
significant people (family members, friends, peers and teachers), and content and
structure of degree. Although all factors influence students HEI choice, to a certain
extent, these significant factors are the key factors influencing their decision to attend
a HEI. In order words, HEIs may develop their institutional positioning, and craft
relevant strategies based on the findings accordingly.

It will enable HEIs to gain certain insights and develop a competitive


advantage over competitors. In fact, knowing the actual reason that students choose a
HEI is the essential element that allows a HEI to be sustainable and survive in an
increasingly competitive HE environment.

124

Table 6.4: Overall implication of findings from the present study


Rank
Variable
1
Cost of
Education

Relationship with
study intention
Positive

Impact
Significant
factor

Gender
Female students are more
cost conscious than male
students

Insignificant Female students are more


factor
concerned than male students

Difference
Academic Background
STPM students place highest importance, followed by
A-level, and L.O.U., as follows:
STPM > GCE A-Level > L.O.U.

Physical
Aspects,
Facilities and
Resources

Positive

People (Family,
Friends, Peers
and Teachers)

Positive

Significant
factor

No significant difference
between male and female
students

A-level and L.O.U. students place more importance


than STPM students. No significant difference
between A-level and L.O.U. students. As follows:
GCE A-Level > STPM
L.O.U. > STPM

Degree
(Content and
Structure)

Positive

Significant
factor

No significant difference
between male and female
students

A-level students place highest importance, followed


by L.O.U., and STPM, as follows:
GCE A-Level > L.O.U. > STPM

Value of
Education

Positive

Insignificant Female students appreciate


factor
the value more than male
students

A-level students place highest importance, followed


by L.O.U., and STPM, as follows:
GCE A-Level > L.O.U. > STPM

Institutional
Information

Positive

Insignificant No significant difference


factor
between male and female
students

No Significant difference between students from


different academic background

N.A.

Intention to
Study

N.A.

N.A.

Female students have higher


intention than male students

A-level students place more importance than STPM


and L.O.U. students. No significant difference
between STPM and L.O.U. students. As follows:
GCE A-Level > STPM
GCE A-Level > L.O.U.

No Significant difference between students from


different academic background

Note: N.A. = Not Applicable


125

Furthermore, such findings assist marketers to plan and improve their


marketing strategy for recruiting students. It may aid HEIs in Malaysia to retain
Malaysian students and deter them from studying abroad. In addition, there is also a
strong possibility of attracting foreign students to study in Malaysia. Thus, by doing
this, Malaysia is able to reverse the outflow of funds and reduce the current service
deficit. In order to achieve this goal, HEI authorities must understand the students
needs and the HEI selection criteria.

6.5

Recommendations

HE is a services industry and within this industry HEIs play a role as service
providers with students as the customers. The decision made to study at a particular
HEI is often referred to as a high purchase involvement. It is because the decision
involves many people surrounding the student, and such decisions are normally
associated with a higher perceived risk. Therefore, usually many attributes are taken
into consideration by students in evaluating the HEI before a decision is made.

According to the findings presented in this study, both the significant and
insignificant factors are identified. Further, differences among students gender and
academic background concerning these attributes are clearly defined. As a result, HEI
authorities may make use of these findings to tailor their marketing elements with
potential students needs. For instance, in this study students with STPM background
are more sensitive to expenditure; HEIs could offer those students scholarships or
other financial aid to reduce their perceived risk in selecting the HEI of their choice.

126

6.6

Contribution of the Study

Theoretical
The findings of this study prove that male and female students differ in the selection
criteria that they consider important when choosing a HEI in the Malaysian context.
This approach is in line with the theory proposed in previous studies (Shank and
Beasley, 1998; Mansfield and Warwick, 2005). Furthermore, the findings reveal that
students from different academic backgrounds differ in their perceived importance
towards a HEI. This approach confirms that the assumption in a previous study by
Elizabeth Ng (2003) is demonstrable. In her study, she found that Malaysian students
from different courses at pre-university level have distinct selection criteria in
selecting educational institutions abroad.

Methodological
The research instrument employed in this study is based on the adaption and further
modification of previous studies (Cubillo et al., 2006; Joseph and Joseph, 1998; 2000;
Zeithaml et al., 1996). This instrument has passed the validity and reliability tests in
this study indicating that the adaption and modification of this instrument are
appropriate. In other words, this is a new approach instrument, and is applicable in the
Malaysian context.

Practical
The findings of this study can assist HEI authorities to have a better understanding
regarding the factors that influence students intention to study at a HEI. This study
discusses the difference between students gender and academic background
concerning the important attributes. It enables HEI authorities to have a fuller
comprehension of students needs.

127

6.7

Suggestion for Future Research

Further research is suggested to investigate some other underlying concepts, as


follows:

1. To identify gender difference in parents evaluative criteria when


students are in the process of selecting a college. Mansfield and
Warwick (2006) carried out a study that addressed differences by parent
gender with regards to the HEI selection process in the United States.
They found that male and female parents differ in the selection criteria
and that it directly affects the students ultimate choice of HEI. In fact,
the majority of Malaysian students studying in HEIs do so at the cost of
their parents. It will be interesting to see whether such differences also
arise in the Malaysian context.

2. In this study, the dependent variable: students intention to study did not
specify whether the intention was to further their studies at a public or
private HEI. As a matter of fact, students perceived values of public
HEIs and PHEIs are very different. Krishman and Nurtjahja (2007) cited
that PHEIs charge students a higher fee than public HEIs. Hence, the
students evaluative criteria for a PHEI will be very different from that
of a public HEI. Consequently, future research may be redesigned to
include two parallel sets of questionnaires to measure the two distinct
variables, namely, the intention to study at a public HEI and the intention
to study at a PHEI.

128

3. To identify the differences among students socioeconomic factors


concerning their intention to study at a HEI, future studies could
compare the differences between students socioeconomic factors, such
as ethnicity and family income, which may affect their intention to study
at a HEI.

6.8

Conclusion of the Chapter

The findings of the present study are extensively discussed in this chapter. Moreover,
this chapter summarises the tasks completed in the present study by reporting the
hypotheses testing, answering the research questions, and describing the achievement
of the research objectives. Additionally, this chapter outlines some implications and
recommendations for HEI authorities for gaining a better understanding of students
needs. Finally, the chapter describes the contributions of the study, and then proposes
some insights for future research.

129

References
Abrahmson, T. and Hossler, D. (1990), Applying Marketing Strategies in Student
Recruitment, The Strategic Management of College Enrollments. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Ahmed, Z.U., Johnson, J.P., Ling, C.P., Fang, T.W. and Hui, A.K. (2002), Country-of-origin
and Brand Effect on Consumers Evaluations of Cruise Lines, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/3, pp. 279-302.
Alexander, K.L. and Eckland, B.K. (1975), Basic Attainment Processes: A Replication and
Extension, Sociology of Education, Vol. 48, pp. 457-495.
Armstrong, J.J. and Lumsden, D.B. (1999), Impact of Universities Promotional Materials
on College Choice, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.
83-91.
Anderson, E. and Sullivan, M. (1993), The antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction for firms, Marketing Science, Vol. 12, pp. 125-43.
Annie Wong, M.N. and Hamali, J. (2006), Higher Education and Employment in Malaysia,
International Journal of Business and Society, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 102-118.
Baird, L. (1967), The Educational Tools of College Bound Youth, American College Testing
Program Research Report, Iowa.
Bakan, D. (1966), The Duality of Human Existence: An Essay on Psychology and Religion,
Chicago. IL: Rand McNally Publishing Company.
Bartlett, M.S. (1954), A Note on the Multiplying Factors for Various Chi Square
Approximations, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 16, pp. 296-298.
Bean, J.P. (1990), Why Students Leave: Insights from Research, The Strategic
Management of Enrollment, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Becker, G.S. (1975), Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special
Reference to Education, New York Bureau of Economic Research, Columbia University.
Bennet, D. (2006), The Effectiveness of Current Student Ambassadors in HE
Marketing Recruitment and Retention, Paper Presented at the International
Conference on HE marketing Cyprus, 3-5 January.
Binsardi, A. and Ekwulugo, F. (2003), International Marketing of British Education: Research
on the Students' Perception and the UK Market Penetration, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 318-327.
Briggs, S.R. and Cheek, J.M. (1986), The Role of Factor analysis in the Development and
Evaluation of Personality Scales, Journal of Personality, Vol. 54, pp. 106-148.

130

Bingham, F. (1989), Promotion: An Inseparable Part of the Marketing Effort, Journal of


Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 15-26.
Borjas, G.J. (1994), The Economics of Immigration, Journal of Economic Literature,
December, pp. 16-67
Bowers, T. and Pugh, R. (1972), A Comparison of Factors Underlying College Choice by
Students and Parents, American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting.
Brennan, L. (2001). How Prospective Students Choose Universities: A Buyer Behavior
Perspective. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Brookes, M. (2003), Higher Education: Marketing in a Quasi-commercial Service Industry,
International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp.
1465-520.
Bourke, A. (2000), A Model of the Determinants of International Trade in Higher
Education, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 110-38.
Cabera, A.F., La Nasa, S.M. (2000), Understanding the College-Choice Process New
Directions for Institutional Research, No. 107 San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Cabera, A.F., Nora, A. and Castaneda, M.B. (1992), The Role of Finances in the Persistence
Process: A Structural Model, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 571593.
Carpenter, P., and Fleishman, J. (1987), Linking intentions and behavior: Australian
students college plans and college attendance, American Educational Research
Journal, Vol. 24, pp.79-105.
Carver, R.H., Nash, J.G. (2006), Doing Data Analysis with SPSS Version 14, Thomson Book
Corporation, Canada.
Cavana, R.Y., Delahaye, B.L. and Sekaran, U. (2000), Applied Business Research:
Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd., Singapore.
Chapman, D. (1981), A Model of Student College Choice, Journal of Higher Education,
Vol. 52, pp. 490-505.
Chapman, R. (1979), Pricing Policy and the College Choice Process, Research in Higher
Education, Vol. 10, No. 37, p. 57.
Chapman, R. (1986), Towards a Theory of College Selection: A Model of College Search
and Choice Behaviour, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, Association for
Consumer Research, Provo, Utah.
Chen, C.H. and Zimitat, C. (2006), Understanding Taiwanese Students Decision-Making
Factors Regarding Australian International Higher Education, The International
Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 91-100.

131

Choy, S.P. and Ottinger, C. (1998), Choosing a Postsecondary Institution. Statistical Analysis
Report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Cleopatra, V., John, W.L. and Robert, A.P. (2004), University Selection: Information
Requirements and Importance, The International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp 160-171.
Coccari, R. and javalgi, R. (1995), Analysis of Students Needs in Selecting A College or
University in a Changing Environment, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,
Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 27-39.
Cohen, J.W. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd Edition,
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coleman, J. (1966). Peer Culture and Education in Modern Society, College Peer Groups:
Problems and Prospects for Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Connor, H. (2001), Deciding for or Against Participation on Higher Education: The View of
Young People from Lower Social Class Backgrounds, Higher Education Quarterly,
Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 204-224.
Cook, R. and Zallocco, R. (1983), Predicting University Preference and Attendance,
Research in Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 197- 211.
Cronin, J. and Taylor, S. (1992), " Measuring Service Quality: A Re-examination and
Extension", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, July, pp. 55-68.
Cubillo, J.M., Sanchez, J., Cervino, J. (2006), International Students Decision-making
Process, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp.
101-115.
Dawidow, W.H. and Uttal, B. (1989), Service Companies: Fows or Faller, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 67, July-August, pp.77.
Dehne, G., Brodigan, D. and Topping, P. (1991), Marketing Higher Education: A Handbook
for College Administrators, Washington, DC: Consortium for the Advancement of
Private Higher Education.
DeVellis, R.F. (2003), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 2nd Edition, Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage.
Discenza, R., Ferguson, J. and Wisner, R. (1985), Marketing Higher Education: Using A
Situation Analysis to Identify Prospective Student Needs in Today's Competitive
Environment, NASPA, Vol. 22, pp. 18-25.
Donald, R.C. and Pamela, S.C. (2003), Business Research Methods, McGraw-Hill Inc.,
United State.
Elizabeth Ng P.P. (2003), Factor Affecting Students When Selecting Education Institutions
Abroad, unpublished MBA Dissertation, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia.

132

Ennew, C., Reed, G. and Binks, M. (1993), Importance-performance Analysis and the
Measurement of Service Quality, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp.
59-70.
Falsey, B. and Haynes, B. (1984), The College Cannel: Private and Public Schools
Reconsidered, Sociology of Higher Education, Vol. 57, pp. 111-122.
Fischer, E. and Arnold, S. (1994), Sex, Gender Identity, Gender Role Attitudes, and Consumer
Behaviour, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 163-182.
Flint, T. A. (1993), Early Awareness of College Financial Aid: Does it Expand College Choice
?, Review of Higher Education, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 309-327.
Flint, T. A. (1992), Parental and Planning Influences on the Formation of Student College Choice
Sets, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 689-708.
Ford, J., Joseph, M. and Joseph, B. (1998), An Importance Performance Analysis of Service
Quality in Education: A Comparison of New Zealand and United States Business
Students, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 156-158.
Fornell, C. (1992), A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, January, pp. 6-21.
Foskett, N. and Hemsley-Brown, J. (2001), Choosing Futures: Young Peoples Decision
Making Bin Education Training and Career Markets, Routledge Falmer, London.
Foskett, N. (1999), Strategy, External Relations and Marketing, Managing External
Relations in Schools and Colleges, Paul Chapman, London.
Foskett, N., Maringe, F. and Roberts, D. (2006), Changing Fee Regimes and Their Impact on
Student Attitudes to Higher Education, Higher Education Academy UK, Vol. 22, No.
2, pp 23-31.
Freeman, K. (1997), Increasing African Americans Participation in Higher Education:
African American students Perspective, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 68,
No.5, pp. 523-550.
Gibbs, P. (2002), From the Invisible Hand to the Invisible Hand-Shake: Marketing Higher
Education, Research in Post Compulsory Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 325-338.
Gray, B.J., Fam, K.S. and Llanes V.A. (2003), Branding Universities in Asian Markets,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 108-120.
Green, R.J. and Hill, J.H. (2003), Sex and Higher Education: Do Men and Women Attend
College for Different Reasons ?, College Student Journal, Vol. 12, pp 1-10.
Gutman, J. and Miaoulis, G. (2003), Communicating a Quality Position in Service Delivery:
An Application in Higher Education, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp.
105-11.

133

Hall, R. (1993), A Framework Linking Intangible Resources: An Capabilities to Sustainable


Competitive Advantage, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 607-618.
Harvey, J.A. and Busher, H. (1996), Marketing Schools and Consumer Choice,
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 26-32.
Hassan, A. (2006), Current Practices of Malaysia Higher Education, International forum:
Globalization and Integration in Higher Education, Kolej Univarsiti Sains dan
Tecknologi Malaysia, Malaysia.
Hassan, F.H. and Sheriff, N.M. (2006), Students Need Recognition for Higher Education at
Private Colleges in Malaysia: An Exploratory Perspective, Sunway Academic
Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 61-71.
Hawes, J.M. and Rao, C.P. (1985), Using Importance-performance Analysis to Develop
Health Care Marketing Strategies, Journal of Health Care Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 4,
pp. 19-25.
Hawes, J.M., Kiser, G.E. and Rao, C.P. (1982), Analyzing the Market for Planned
Retirement Communities in the Southwest, Baylor Business Studies, Vol. 13,
August-September-October, pp. 39-46.
Hayden, M. (2000), College Choice Influences: Urban High School Students Respond.
Community College, Journal of Research and Practice, Vol. 24, pp. 487-494.
Hayes, T.J. (1989),How Students choose a College: A Qualitative Approach, Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 19-27.
Hayes, T.J., Walker, M. and Trebbi, G. (1995), Promoting to Women: Its Not What You
Think in Symposium for Marketing of Higher Education, Chicago:American
Marketing Association.
Hemmasi, M., Strong, K. and Taylor, S. (1994), Measuring Service Quality for Strategic
Planning and Analysis in Service Firms, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol.
10 No. 4, pp. 24- 34.
Hemsley-Brown, J. (1999), College choice: Perceptions and Priorities, Educational
Management & Administration, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 85-98.
Hemsley-Brown, J. and Oplatka, I. (2006), Universities in A Competitive Global
Marketplace: A Systematic Review of the Literature on Higher Education Marketing,
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 316-338.
Hossler, D. (1985), A Research Overview of Student College Choice, Association for the
Study of Higher Education, Chicago, IL.
Hossler, D. (1999), Effective Admissions Recruitment. New Directions for Higher Education.
Jossey- Bass.

134

Hossler, D., Bean, J.P. and Associates (1990). The Strategic Management of College
Enrollments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hossler, D., Braxton, J.M. and Coopersmith, G. (1989). Understanding student college
choice, in Smart, J.C. (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research.
New York: Agathon Press.
Hossler, D. and Gallagher, K.S. (1987), Studying Student College Choice: A Three-Phase
Model and the Implications for Policymakers, College and University, Vol. 62, No.
3, pp. 207-22.
Hossler, D., Hu, S., Schmit, J. (1998). Predicting Student Sensitivity to Tuition and Financial
Aid, Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research
Association, San Diego California
Hossler, Don., Schmit, Jack., & Vesper, Nick., (1999), Going to College, How Social,
Economic, and Educational Factors Influence the Decisions Students Make, The John
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London.
Hooley, G.J. and Lynch, J.E. (1981) Modeling the Student University Choice Process
Through the Use of Conjoint Measurement Techniques, European Research, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 158-70.
Houston, M. (1979), Cognitive Structure and Information Search Patterns of Prospective
Graduate Business Students, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. VII, October,
pp. 552-7.
Ivy, J.P. (2001), University Image: The Role of Marketing in MBA Student Recruitment in
State Subsidized Universities in the Republic of South Africa, Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, University of Leicester, Leicester.
Ivy, J.P. (2001), Higher Education Institution Image: A Correspondence Analysis
Approach, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 15, No. 6/7,
pp. 276-282.
Jackson, G. A., (1982), Public Efficiency and Private Choice in Higher Education,
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 237-247.
Jacobs, J. (1999), Gender and the Stratification of Colleges, The Journal of Higher
Education, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 161-187.
James, J., Baldwin, G. and McInnis, C. (1999), Which University ? The Factors Influencing
the Choice of Prospective Undergraduates. A study undertaken under the Australian
Higher Education Divisions Evaluations and Investigation Programme, Canberra.
John, E.P. (1990), Price Response in Enrollment Decisions: An Analysis of the High School
and Beyond Sophomore Cohort, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.
161-176.

135

Joseph, M. and Joseph, B. (1998), Identifying Need of Potential Students in Tertiary


Education for Strategy Development, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 6, No. 2,
pp. 90-96.
Joseph, M. and Joseph, B. (2000), Indonesian Students Perceptions of Choice Criteria in the
Selection of a Tertiary Institution: Strategic Implications, The International Journal
of Educational Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 40-44.
Joseph, M. and Joseph, B. (1997), Service Quality in Education: The Role of Student as
Primary Consumer, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 15-21.
Kaiser, H. (1970), A Second Generation Little Jiffy, Psychometrika, Vol. 35, pp. 401-415.
Kaiser, H. (1974), An Index of Factorial Simplicity, Psychometrika, Vol. 39, pp. 31-36.
Kinnell, M. (1989), International Marketing in UK Higher Education: Some Issues in
Relation to Marketing Educational Programmes to Overseas Students, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 7-21
Kinnell, M. and MacDougall, J. (1997), Marketing in the Non-For-Profit Sector. Jordan Hill,
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Kotler, P. (1975), Marketing for Nonprofit Organization, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall Inc.
Kotler, P. (1979), Strategies for Introducing Marketing into Nonprofit Organizations,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 37-44.
Kotler, P. and Andreasen, A.R. (1996), Strategic Marketing into Nonprofit Organizations, 5th
Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Kotler, P. and Fox, K.F.A. (1985), Strategic Management for Educational Institutions,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kotler, P. and Fox, K.F.A. (1995), Strategic Management for Educational Institutions, 2nd
Edition, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kotler, P. and Levy, S.J. (1969), Broadening the Concept of Marketing, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 10-15.
Krampf, R.F. and Heinlein, A.C. (1981), Developing Marketing Strategies and Tactics in
Higher Education Through Target Market Research, Decision Sciences, Vol. 12 No.
2, pp. 175-193.
Krishnan, A. and Nurtjahja, O. (2007), Evaluative Criteria for Selection of Private
Universities and Colleges in Malaysia, Journal of International Management
Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp 22-31.
Krone, F., Gilly, M., Zeithaml, V. and Lamb, C. (1983), Factors Influencing the Graduate
Business School Decision, American Marketing Association Educators
Proceedings, Chicago, IL.

136

Laroche, M., Saad, G., Cleveland, M. and Browne, E. (2000), Gender Differences in
Information Search Strategies for a Christmas Gift, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 500-524.
Leslie, L. L., and Brinkman, P. T. (1988), The Economic Value of Higher Education.
American Council on Education, Macmillan.
Leslie, L. L., Johnson, G. P. and Carlson, J. (1977), The Impact of Need-Based Student Air
upon the College Attendance Decision, Journal of Education Finance, Vol. 2, No. 3,
pp. 269-285.
Levitt, T. (1980), Marketing Success Through Differentiation of Anything, Harvard
Business Review, February, pp. 83-89.
Lewis, G.H. and Morrison, S. (1975), A Longitudinal Study of College Selection. Technical
Report No. 2, Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.

Lin, L. (1997), What are Student Education and Educational Related Needs ?, Marketing
and Research Today, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 199-212.
Lin, C. and Kao, D.T. (2004), The Impact of Country-of-origin on Brand Equity, Journal
of American Academy of Business, Vol. 5, No. 1/2, pp. 37-40.
Litten, L. (1980), Marketing Higher Education, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 51, No.
4, pp. 40-59.
Litten, L.H. (1982), Different Strokes in the Applicant pool: Some Refinements in a Model
of Students Choice, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 4, pp.383-402.
Loudon, D. and Della Bitta, A. (1988), Consumer Behaviour: Concepts and Applications, 3rd
edition, McGraw-Hill International, Singapore.
Lovelock, C. (2007), Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy, 6th edition,
Prentice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Maehl, W. (2000), The Challenge to Postsecondary Education From An Expanding Pool of
Learners, Lifelong Learning at Its Best: Innovative Practice in Adult Credit
Programs, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Maguire, J. and Lay, R. (1981), Modeling the College Choice: Image and Decision,
College and University, Vol. 56, pp. 113-26.
Manilla, J. and James, J. (1977), Importance-performance analysis, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 41, January, pp. 77-9.
Mansfield, P.M. and Warwick, J. (2005), Gender Differences in Students and Parents
Evaluative Criteria When Selecting a College, Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 47-80.

137

Maringe, F. (2006), University and Course Choice: Implications for Positioning,


Recruitment and Marketing, The International Journal of Educational Management,
Vol. 20, No. 6, pp 466-479.
Mazzarol, T. and Hosie, P. (1996), Exporting Australian Higher Education: Future
Strategies in maturing market, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.
37-50.
Mazzarol, T. (1999), An examination of the factors critical to the establishment and
maintenance of competitive advantage for educational service enterprises within
international markets,unpublished PhD thesis, Curtin University of Technology,
Australia.
Mazzarol, T.W. (1998), Critical Success Factors for International Education Marketing,
International Journal of Education Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 163-75.
Mazzarol, T.W., Choo, S. and Nair, V.S. (2001a), Australia and the Indian Postgraduate
Science and Technology Market. Examining Why Indian Students Choose to Study in
Countries Other than Australia, Australian Education International, Department of
Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Mazzarol, T., Kemp, S. and Savery, L. (1997), International Students Who Choose Not to
Study in Australia: An Examination of Taiwan and Indonesia, Australian International
Education Foundation, Canberra.
Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G.N. and Tien, V. (1996), "Education Linkages Between Canada and
Australia: An Examination of the Potential for Greater Student Flows", Unpublished
Paper, Institution for Research into International Competitiveness, Curtin Business
School, Perth.
Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G.N. and Thein, V. (2000), Critical Success Factors in the Marketing
of An Education Institution - A Comparison of Institutional and Student
Perspectives, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 39-57.
Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G.N. (2002), Push-pull Factors Influencing International Student
Destination Choice, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 16,
No. 2, pp. 82-90.
Mazzarol, T.W., Soutar, G.N., Smart, D. and Choo, S. (2001), Perceptions, Information and
Choice: Understanding How Chinese Students Select a Country for Overseas Study,
Australian Education International, Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
McMahon, M.E. (1992), Higher Education in a World Market: An Historical Look at the
Global Context of International Study, Higher Education, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 465482.
Meyers-Levy, J. (1988), The Influence of Sex Roles on Judgment, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 14, pp.522-530.

138

Meyer-Levy, J. and Mahjeswaran, D. (1991), Exploring Difference in Males and Females


Processing Strategies, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, pp. 63-71.
Meyer-Levy, J. and Sternthal, B. (1991), Gender Differences in the Use of Message Cue and
Judgments, Journal of Marketing Research, pp. 84-98.
Miller, E.I., (1997), Parents Views on the Value of a College Education and How They Will
Pay for It, Journal of Student Financial Aid, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 20.
Molly, N.N.L. (2006), Centralized Decentralization in Malaysia Education, Educational
Decentralization, Springer, Netherlands.
Molly, N.N.L.(1999), Education in Malaysia: Towards Vision 2020, School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 86-89.
Molly, N.N.L.(2004), Global Trends, National Policies and Institutional Responses:
Restructuring Higher Education In Malaysia, Educational Research for Policy and
Practice, Vol. 3, pp. 31-46.
Murphy, P. (1981), Consumer Buying Roles in College Choice, College and University,
Vol. 56, pp. 140-150.
Nguyen, N. and LeBlanc, G. (2001), Image and Reputation of Higher Education Institutions
in Students Retention Decision, The International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 303-311.
Noble, M.S. (1986), Marketing Programs at Colleges and Universities: A Progress Report,
College and University, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 318-326.
Nora, A. and Cabrera, A.F. (1992), Measuring Program Outcomes: What Impacts are
Important to Assess and What Impacts are Possible to Measure ? Paper Prepared for
the Design Conference for the Evaluation of Talent Search. Washington. D.C.: Office
of Policy and Planning. U.S. Department of Education.
Nunnaly, J.O. (1978), Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach to Design and
Evaluation, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ogbuehi, A. O. and Rogers, H. P. (1990), Recruitment for Higher Education: Targeting the
Excellent High School Student, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 3,
No. 1, pp. 67-77.
Oosterbeek, H., Groot, W. and Hartog, J. (1992), An Empirical Analysis of University
Choice and Earnings, The Economist, Vol. 140, No. 3, pp. 293-309.
Ortinau, D. and Anderson, R. (1986), College Students Post-Purchase Educational
Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Decision Process: A Conceptual Model, AMA Educator'
Proceedings, Chicago, IL.

139

Ortinau, D., Anderson, R. and Klippel, R. (1987), The Impact of Student Involvement and
Expectancy Beliefs on Course/Faculty Evaluations, AMA Educators' Proceedings,
Chicago, IL, pp. 266-271.
Pallant, J.F. (2007), SPSS Survival Manual, 3rd Edition, Open University Press, United
Kingdoms.
Paramewaran, R. and Glowacka, A.E. (1995), University Image: an Information Processing
Perspective, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 41-56.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (2004), SERVQUAL: A Multiple-item Scale
for Measuring Customer Expectations of Service Quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol.
64, No. 1, pp. 5-6.
Patterson, P., Romm, T. and Hill, C. (1998), Consumer Satisfaction As a Process: A
Qualitative, retrospective Longitudinal Study of Overseas Students in Australia,
Journal of Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 135-57.
Paulsen, M.B. (1990), College Choice: Understanding Student Enrollment Behavior, ASHEERIC Higher Education Report No. 6, Washington, D.C.: School of Education and
Human Development, George Washington University.
Peng, Z., Lawley, M. and Perry, C. (2000), Modeling and Testing Effects of Country,
Corporate and Brand Images on Consumers Product Evaluation and Purchase
Intention, Paper Presented at the ANZMAC 2000 Visionary Marketing for the 21st
Century: Facing the Challenge Conference.
Perna, L. W. (2000), Differences in College Enrollment Among African Americans,
Hispanics and Whites, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 117-141.
Peters, M. (1992), Performance Indicators in New Zealand Higher Education: accountability
or control ?, Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 267-83.
Pimpa, N. (2003), The influence of Family on Thai Students Choices of International
Education, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 17 No. 5,
pp. 211-219.
Price, I., Matzdorf, L. and Agahi, R (2003), "The Impact of Facilities on Student Choice of
University", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp.
212-222.
Qureshi, S. (1995), College Accession Research: New Variables in an Old Equation,
Journal of Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 163-70.
Rathmell, J.M. (1966), What is Meant by Services ?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30,
October, pp. 32-36.
Roberts, K. (1984), School Leavers and Their Prospects: Youth in the Labour Market in the
1980s, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

140

Rosen, D.E., Curran, J.M. and Greenlee, T.B. (1998), College Choice in Brand Elimination
Framework: The High School Students Perspective, Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp 73-92.
Russell, C. (1980), Survey of Grade 12 Students Postsecondary Plans and Aspirations,
Manitoba: Canadian Department of Education.
Rust, R. and Zahorik, A. (1993), Customer Satisfaction, Customer Retention and Market
Share, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69, Summer, pp. 145-156.
Schab, F. (1974), Reasons for Attending College as Reported by Female Students, Florida
Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 16, pp. 55-58.
Schweitzer, S. (2006), N.E. Colleges Preparing for Drop in Local Students, Boston Globe,
Jan. 24, 2006, A.1.
Sekaran, U. (2003), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 4th edition,
John Wiley & Sons Inc., U.S.
Seneca, J. and Taussig, M. (1987), The Effects of Tuition and Financial Aid on the
Enrolment Decision at a State University, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 26,
August, pp. 337- 62.
Sethna, B.N. (1982), Extensions and Testing of Importance-performance Analysis,
Business Economics, September, pp. 28-31.
Sewell, W., and Shah, V. (1968), Social Class, Parental Encouragement, and Educational
Aspirations, America Journal of Sociology, Vol. 73, pp. 559-572.
Shank, M.D. and Beasley, F. (1998), Gender Effects on the University Selection Process,
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 63-71.
Sheppard, L., Schmit, J., and Pugh, R. (1992), Factors Influencing High School Students
Changes in Plans for Post Secondary Education: A longitudinal Study, Paper
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco.
Sidin, M.S., Hussin, S.R. and Tan, H.S., (2003), An Exploratory Study of Factors
Influencing the College Choice Decision of Undergraduate Students in Malaysia,
Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 259-280.
Smith, D., Scott, P. and Lynch, J. (1995), The Role of Marketing in the University and
College Sector, Heist, Leeds.
Sohail, M.S., Rajadurai, J. and Rahman, N.A.A. (2003), Managing Quality in Higher
Education: A Malaysian Case Study, The International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 141-146.

141

Sohail, M.S. and Saeed, M. (2003), Private Higher Education in Malaysia: Students
Satisfaction Level and Strategic Implications, Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp 173-181.
Somers, P., Cofer, J. and Putten, J.V. (1999), The Influence of Early Aspirations and
Attitudes on Postsecondary Attendance, American Educational Research Association
Conference, Montreal, Canada.
Soutar, G. and Turner, J. (2002), Students Preferences for University: a Conjoint Analysis,
The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 40-45.
Srikatanyoo, N. and Gnoth, J. (2002), Country image and international tertiary education,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 139-46.
St. John, Edward, P., Michael, B., Paulsen and Deborah, F.C. (2005), Diversity, College
Costs, and Postsecondary Opportunity: An Examination of the Financial Nexus
Between College Choice and Persistence for African Americans and Whites, The
Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 30, pp. 301-315.
Stage, F.K. and Hossler, D. (1989), Differences in Family Influences on College Attendance
Plans for Male and Female Ninth Graders, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 30,
No. 3, pp. 301-315.
Stanton, W.J. (1974), Fundamentals of Marketing, McGraw Hill, Tokyo.
Stefanie. D., Teresa, L. and Danielle, L. (20060, Higher Education Marketing Concerns:
Factors Influence Students Choice of Colleges, The Business Review, Cambridge,
Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 101-110.
Swinyard, W.R. (1980), Strategy Development With Importance/Performance Analysis,
Journal of Bank Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 228-234,
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th Edition, Boston:
Pearson Education.
Teichler, V. (2004), The changing debate on internationalization of higher education,.
Higher Education, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 5-26.
Thomas, M.S., Adams and Birchenough, A. (1996), Students Withdraw From Higher
Education, Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 207221.
Tierney, M. (1983), Student College Choice Cets: Toward An Empirical Characterization,
Research in Higher Education, Vol. 18, pp. 271-284.
Tillery, D. (1973), Distribution and Differentiation of Youth: A Study of Transition from
School to College. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
Tillery, D., and Kildegaard, T. (1973), Educational Goals, Attitudes and Behaviors: A
Comparative Study of High School Seniors, Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.

142

Topor, R. (1983), Marketing Higher Education: A Practical Guide, Washington, DC: Council
for Advancement and Support of Education.
Turner, J.P. (1998), An Investigation of Business Undergraduates Choice to Study at Edith
Cowan University, Unpublished Research Report, Edith Cowan University, Perth.
Turner, P., Anne, C. (2007), Why University Student Choose an International Education: A
Case Study in Malaysia, International Journal of Education Development, Vol. 27,
No. 2, pp. 235-246.
Vaira, M. (2004), Globalization and Higher Education Organizational Change: A
Framework for Analysis, Higher Education, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 483-510.
Wajeeh, E.M. and Micceri, T. (1997), Factor Influencing Students College Choice at
Traditional and Metropolitan Universities, Paper Presented at the Annual Forum of
the Association for Institutional Research, Orlando, FL.
Walther, E. (2000), The Relationships Between Student Satisfaction and Student Retention in
Higher Education, Unpublished Dissertation, Faculty of Graduate School, University
of North Carolina, Greensboro.
Watson, B.L. (2000), A Descriptive Study of Enrollment Marketing Strategies for Four-Year
Public Colleges and Universities, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 61, No.
10.
Webb, M. (1993), Variables Influencing Graduate Business Students College Selections,
College and University, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 38-46.
Wilson, K. R., and Allen, W. R. (1987), Explaining the Educational Attainment of Young
Black Adults: Critical Familial and Extra-familial Influences, Journal of Negro
Education, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 64-67.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), The Behavioral Consequences of
Service Quality, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 31-46.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L. (1985), Problems and Strategies in Services
Marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, Spring, pp. 33-46.
Zusman, A. (1999), Issues Facing Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century, American
Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins
University Press.

143